United States of America v. Genaro Gasca, a.k.a. David Garcia

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GENARO GASCA, a.k.a. David Garcia,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-10273
D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00213-RS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Genaro Gasca 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. We review de novo whether a district court
has 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 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).
FILED
MAR 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-10273
Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
Gasca contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment
782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly concluded that
Gasca is ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence is already at 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 . . . to a term
that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”); United States v.
Davis, 739 F.3d 1222, 1224 (9th Cir. 2014). We reject Gasca’s argument that
section 1B1.10(b), as revised by the Sentencing Commission in 2011, violates his
right to due process. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 828 (2010)
(“[T]he sentence-modification proceedings authorized by § 3582(c)(2) are not
constitutionally compelled.”); United States v. Tercero, 734 F.3d 979, 983-84 (9th
Cir. 2013) (“[T]he [2011] revisions to § 1B1.10 fall squarely within the scope of
Congress’s articulated role for the Commission.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --