United States of America v. Alberto Barragan, a.k.a. Luis Alberto Barragan

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALBERTO BARRAGAN, a.k.a. Luis
Alberto Barragan,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30058
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00044-JLQ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Barragan 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, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Barragan contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under
Amendment 782. The district court determined that Barragan was not eligible for a
sentence reduction because his sentence was based on the parties’ Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, rather than a Guidelines range that
had been lowered by Amendment 782. It also concluded, however, that even if
Barragan were eligible for a sentence reduction, he was not entitled to one under
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Assuming without deciding that our
recent decision in United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc),
renders the district court’s eligibility determination erroneous, we nonetheless
affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion when, after evaluating
Barragan’s post-sentencing conduct and his sentencing exposure at the time of his
conviction, it concluded that a 150-month sentence remained appropriate. See
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1095-
96 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
15-30058 2

-- 2 of 2 --