Texte intégral
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SOCORRO LOYA-CHAVEZ, a.k.a. Carlos
Guerro,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-10009
D.C. No. 3:98-cr-00133-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Socorro Loya-Chavez 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.
Loya-Chavez contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under
* 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
SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 18-10009
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. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). Loya-Chavez was
sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not
“based on” a Guideline that was lowered by Amendment 782, and he is ineligible
for a reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731. The
Supreme Court cases Loya-Chavez cites do not support a contrary result.
Moreover, Loya-Chavez is incorrect that the district court could have reduced his
sentence to account for alleged sentencing disparities and his post-sentencing
rehabilitation. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010) (district
court can only consider whether a reduction is warranted under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) if it first determines that a reduction is authorized).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --