-
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30131 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00082-RSL v. JUAN SALINAS BAUTISTA, a.k.a. DJ, MEMORANDUM * a.k.a. Jose Morales Victoria, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 18, 2013 ** Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Juan Salinas Bautista appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Salinas Bautista contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction based * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). upon amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines promulgated in connection with the Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”), which he also argues should be given retroactive effect. We review de novo whether the district court had authority to modify the sentence. See United States v. Leniear,
574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The FSA and related Guidelines amendments had no effect upon either the statutory or the advisory Sentencing Guidelines ranges applicable in Salinas Bautista’s case. His base offense level of 32, which was dictated by the quantities of powder cocaine involved in the case, remains unchanged under the amendments, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), and his statutory sentencing range on the one count that involved both powder and crack cocaine would remain 10 years-to-life under the FSA even if, contrary to our precedent, see United States v. Baptist,
646 F.3d 1225(9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), the act were given retroactive effect. See
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(ii). Accordingly, his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” and the district court properly denied the motion. See
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear,
574 F.3d at 673-74. AFFIRMED. 2 12-30131
Document Info
Docket Number: 12-30131
Citation Numbers: 531 F. App'x 788
Judges: Hurwitz, Smith, Tallman
Filed Date: 6/21/2013
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/6/2023