United States v. Elias Barrera-Medina , 671 F. App'x 964 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10173
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:02-cr-00213-MCE
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ELIAS MIGUEL BARRERA-MEDINA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Elias Miguel Barrera-Medina 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.
*
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).
Barrera-Medina contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a
district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See
United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court
correctly concluded that Barrera-Medina is ineligible for a sentence reduction
because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable sentencing range. See 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74.
Barrera-Medina’s challenges to the sentencing court’s drug quantity
calculations are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v.
United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010) (section 3582(c)(2) authorizes “only a
limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing
proceeding”).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-10173