United States of America v. Quintin Stephen

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
QUINTIN STEPHEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-50442
D.C. No. 2:94-cr-00254-AG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Quintin Stephen 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 a district court’s
determination that a defendant is ineligible for a reduction under section
FILED
JUL 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

3582(c)(2), see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we
affirm.
Stephen contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under
Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, and that the district court erred by
denying his motion based on the drug quantity calculated in the presentence report
rather than the quantity stipulated in his plea agreement. This contention fails.
Even using the cocaine base and powder quantities stipulated in Stephen’s plea
agreement, Amendment 750 did not lower the sentencing range applicable to his
offense. Thus, Stephen is not eligible for sentence reduction and the district court
did not err by denying his motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d
at 673.
AFFIRMED.
13-50442 2

-- 2 of 2 --