United States of America v. Steve Rankin

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
STEVE RANKIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50252
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00093-CAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted, September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Steve Rankin appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rankin contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under the Fair
FILED
OCT 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-50252 2
Sentencing Act and subsequent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines because
a reduction was expressly contemplated in the parties’ binding plea agreement
under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). We review de novo
whether a district court has authority to modify a defendant’s sentence under
section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2012).
The district court correctly determined that Rankin is not eligible for a
sentence reduction because his sentence was based on a stipulation in the parties’
binding plea agreement, and not on a sentencing range that has been subsequently
lowered by the Sentencing Commission, as required by section 3582(c)(2). See id.
927-28. The plea agreement does not call for Rankin to be sentenced within a
particular Guidelines sentencing range nor, contrary to Rankin’s contention, is any
such Guidelines range expressly used in the agreement or evident from the
agreement itself. Accordingly, the district court lacked authority to modify
Rankin’s sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See id. at 928, 930.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --