United States v. Sheri Bulacan , 667 F. App'x 670 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 01 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10311
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:07-cr-00552-SOM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SHERI LYNN BULACAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan Oki Mollway, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 29, 2016**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Sheri Lynn Bulacan appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
her 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
*
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).
has authority to reduce a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v.
Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
Bulacan contends that the district court erred in concluding that she is
ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Guidelines. She
argues that she is eligible for a reduction because, at her original sentencing, the
district court did not adopt a specific drug quantity and reduced her sentence based
on substantial assistance. We disagree. The record reflects that the court adopted
the drug quantity calculated in the presentence report, which was based on
Bulacan’s stipulations in her plea agreement.1 Because Amendment 782 did not
lower the base offense level associated with that drug quantity, the district court
correctly concluded that Bulacan is ineligible for a sentence reduction, regardless
of her substantial assistance. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. §
1B1.10(a)(2)(B), (b)(2)(B); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74.
AFFIRMED.
1
Given that there is no dispute over the drug quantity that was used at
sentencing, we also reject Bulacan’s claim that she was entitled to appointed
counsel and a hearing on that question in the district court.
2 15-10311