United States v. Lewis Mitchell ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30169
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:07-cr-00019-SEH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LEWIS LYNN MITCHELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017*
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Lewis Lynn Mitchell appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mitchell contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Mitchell’s request for oral
argument is denied.
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a
defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Leniear, 574
F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Mitchell was sentenced as a career offender under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not “based on” a Guidelines range that
was lowered by Amendment 782 and he is ineligible for a reduction. See 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, contrary to Mitchell’s contention, the district court had no cause to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.
817, 826-27 (2010).
Mitchell’s contention that he should not have been sentenced as a career
offender is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United States v.
Waters, 648 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-30169