United States v. Jack Vose , 624 F. App'x 588 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 15 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 15-10120
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00734-CKJ
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    JACK MARTIN VOSE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 9, 2015**
    Before:        WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    Jack Martin Vose 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 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).
    Vose 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.
    Paulk, 
    569 F.3d 1094
    , 1095 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Vose is not entitled to a
    sentence reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that
    has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C.
    § 3582(c)(2). Rather, his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum
    under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii). The district court properly denied relief.1 See
    
    Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095-96
    .
    Vose’s additional claims do not support relief under section 3582(c)(2). See
    Dillon v. United States, 
    560 U.S. 817
    , 826 (2010) (section 3582(c) does not permit
    a “plenary resentencing hearing”).
    AFFIRMED.
    1
    Vose’s contention that he was not subject to the enhanced mandatory
    minimum because the judgment does not cite 21 U.S.C. § 851(a) is unavailing. The
    mandatory minimum is set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii).
    2                                   15-10120
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-10120

Citation Numbers: 624 F. App'x 588

Filed Date: 12/15/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023