United States of America v. Jose Lopez-Buelna

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSE LOPEZ-BUELNA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-10179
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00113-GMN-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Lopez-Buelna 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. We review de novo whether a district court
had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v.
* 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
MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-10179
Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
Although the Guidelines range applicable to Lopez-Buelna’s offenses was
lowered by Amendment 782, because Lopez-Buelna’s 240-month sentence is
below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range of 324-405 months, the
district court correctly concluded that Lopez-Buelna is ineligible for a sentence
reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not reduce the
defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy
statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline
range.”); United States v. Davis, 739 F.3d 1222, 1224 (9th Cir. 2014). Lopez-
Buelna’s argument that the district court miscalculated the amended Guidelines
range is without merit. Contrary to his assertion, the district court could not revisit
the aggravating role enhancement or its drug quantity determination in these
section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831
(2010). Moreover, Amendment 794 is not one of the listed amendments under
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) and, therefore, did not provide an independent basis for a
sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --