United States of America v. Joseph D. Clements

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).
EH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH D. CLEMENTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10153
D.C. No. 2:98-cr-00402-LDG
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Joseph D. Clements appeals from the district court’s order denying his
motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the
FILED
JAN 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EH/Research 09-10153 2
retroactive application of Amendment 706 to the Sentence Guidelines provisions
governing crack cocaine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
Clements contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a
sentence reduction under Amendment 706 because his sentence was based, in part,
on a sentencing range calculated under the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1. This contention fails because Clements qualified as a career offender
under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Because the district court sentenced Clements based on a
sentencing range calculated under § 4B1.1, he is not eligible for a sentence
reduction under Amendment 706. See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731
(9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --