United States of America v. Frank Reyes

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FRANK REYES,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50049
D.C. No. 3:06-cr-01242-DMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Frank Reyes 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.
FILED
FEB 21 2017
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 --

Reyes contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment
782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court has
authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v.
Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court correctly concluded
that Reyes is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not
lower his applicable sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574
F.3d at 673-74. Because the district court lacked authority to reduce Reyes’s
sentence, it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v.
United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). Finally, Reyes is not entitled to an
evidentiary hearing regarding the drug quantities attributable to him because that
issue is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at
826 (section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a “plenary resentencing proceeding”).
AFFIRMED.
16-50049 2

-- 2 of 2 --