United States v. Danny Pereda ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10041
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00119-WBS-5
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DANNY PEREDA, AKA T-Mighty,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Danny Pereda 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.
Pereda argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment
782. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a
*
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).
sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730
(9th Cir. 2009). As the district court concluded, Pereda was sentenced as a career
offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Contrary to Pereda’s assertion, the fact that the
parties stipulated to, and the district court accepted, a sentence below the career-
offender guideline range does not make him eligible for a reduction. For purposes
of a sentence reduction motion, the “applicable” guideline range is the pre-variance
range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); United States v. Pleasant, 704 F.3d
808, 811-12 (9th Cir. 2013), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Davis,
825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Because the pre-variance range here was
the career-offender range, which was not lowered by Amendment 782, Pereda is
ineligible for a sentence reduction. See Pleasant, 704 F.3d at 812; Wesson, 583
F.3d at 731.
Pereda’s remaining claims are outside the scope of this section 3582(c)(2)
proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-10041