United States of America v. Anthony Francis Book

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY FRANCIS BOOK,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30032
D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00051-SEH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Francis Book 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.
Book contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment
* 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).
FILED
AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-30032
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.
Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The record makes clear that the
district court imposed Book’s sentence for reasons unrelated to the guideline range
lowered by Amendment 782. Because Book’s sentence was not “based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the district court properly concluded that he
was ineligible was a sentence reduction. See United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano,
855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017). Moreover, contrary to Book’s contention,
the district court had no cause to consider his arguments that a reduction was
warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560
U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010).
Book’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --