United States v. Darrell Snyder , 671 F. App'x 696 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 16-30035
Nos. 16-30036
Plaintiff-Appellee, Nos. 16-30037
v. D.C. Nos. 3:00-cr-00371-BR
D.C. Nos. 3:00-cr-00547-BR
DARRELL LYNN SNYDER, a.k.a. D.C. Nos. 3:04-cr-00115-BR
Joseph Edward Saleski, a.k.a. Justin
Arthur Slone, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Darrell L Snyder 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.
*
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).
Snyder contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under
Amendment 782. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668,
672 (9th Cir. 2009), we agree with the district court that it lacked authority to
reduce Snyder’s sentence. The sentencing court determined that Snyder was
responsible for 1,068 kilograms of cocaine. Thus, his base offense level remains a
38 under Amendment 782, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2014), and he is ineligible
for a sentence reduction. See Leniear, 574 F.3d at 674.
Snyder nonetheless contends that the district court erred in determining that
he was responsible for 1,068 kilograms of cocaine, the amount calculated in the
presentence report, and should have relied instead on the lower quantity of drugs
for which he admitted responsibility in his plea agreement. We disagree. The
record shows that the sentencing court adopted the drug quantity calculated in the
undisputed presentence report, and Snyder cannot challenge that calculation in
these proceedings. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 831 (2010)
(section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a plenary resentencing hearing).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-30035, 16-30036 & 16-30037