United States v. Donald McKenrick , 696 F. App'x 254 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30197
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00007-SEH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DONALD McKENRICK,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Donald McKenrick appeals 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.
McKenrick 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).
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a
district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See
United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The record makes
clear that the district court imposed McKenrick’s sentence for reasons unrelated to
the guideline range lowered by Amendment 782. Because McKenrick’s sentence
was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the district court properly
concluded that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v.
Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017). Further, because
McKenrick was ineligible, the district court had no cause to consider McKenrick’s
post-sentencing behavior or any other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) considerations. See
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-30197