United States of America v. Felix Troncoso

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FELIX TRONCOSO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10237
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00056-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Felix Troncoso 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 has jurisdiction to
FILED
DEC 31 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-10237 2
modify a sentence under section 3582. See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668,
672 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
Troncoso contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under
Amendment 750, which amended the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 for
offenses involving crack cocaine. Troncoso is not eligible for a sentence reduction
because his sentence was based on the parties’ stipulation in a binding plea
agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), and not “on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission,” as required by section 3582(c)(2). See Freeman v. United States,
131 S. Ct. 2685, 2695-96 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring and controlling).
Although a Guidelines sentencing range is specified in Troncoso’s plea agreement,
the stipulated sentence is not within that range. Troncoso’s contention that the
parties nevertheless based the stipulated sentence on a Guidelines range is not
supported by the plea agreement itself, which is the only place this court may look
to determine the basis for the sentence imposed. See id. at 2697-98. We therefore
conclude that the sentence is based on the parties’ binding agreement, and the
district court lacked jurisdiction to modify Troncoso’s sentence under section
3582(c)(2). See United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 930 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --