United States v. Christopher Durbin , 669 F. App'x 425 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30266
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 9:11-cr-00062-DWM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHRISTOPHER RYAN DURBIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Ryan Durbin 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. We review de novo whether a district court
had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v.
*
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).
Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
Durbin contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court correctly
concluded that Durbin is ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence is
already below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. 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.”). Contrary to Durbin’s
contentions, the application of section 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) to his case does not violate
the Ex Post Facto Clause, see United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680-81 (9th
Cir. 2014), and section 3582(c)(2) proceedings “do not implicate the interests
identified in Booker.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 828 (2010).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-30266