United States v. George Beltran , 688 F. App'x 441 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50232
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00002-MMA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GEORGE ALBERTO BELTRAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
George Alberto Beltran 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.
Beltran 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
defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2). See United
States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009). Beltran is not eligible for a
sentence reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that
has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). Rather, his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum
under 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B). Thus, the district court properly denied relief.
See Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095.
Beltran’s additional claims are not cognizable under section 3582(c)(2). See
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010) (alleged sentencing errors are
“outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2)”).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50232