United States v. Vanessa Bishop , 677 F. App'x 409 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50058
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00775-JLS
v. MEMORANDUM*
VANESSA MARIA BISHOP,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Vanessa Maria Bishop appeals from the district court’s order denying her
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.
*
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).
Bishop contends that she is entitled to a sentence reduction under
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Contrary to Bishop’s contention,
the district court properly calculated her amended Guidelines range without
considering the four-level fast-track departure that the court granted at her original
sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); United States v. Ornelas, 825 F.3d
548, 555 (9th Cir. 2016). Because Bishop received a 70-month sentence, which is
below the amended Guidelines range, the district court properly denied her motion
for a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not
reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this
policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline
range.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50058