United States of America v. Jesus E. Elizondo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JESUS E. ELIZONDO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30307
D.C. No.
2:13-cr-00024-SEH-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submission Deferred February 7, 2018
Submitted August 6, 2018**
Seattle, Washington
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Elizondo appeals the district court’s denial of his motion pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for reduction of sentence based on retroactive Sentencing
Guidelines Amendment 782. In light of Amendment 782 and Koons v. United
* 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 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
States, 138 S. Ct. 1783 (2018), Defendant was eligible for a sentence reduction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because his sentence was “based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). At the original sentencing, the district court calculated
Defendant’s Guidelines range to be 121 to 151 months. It then noted that were it
not for the Government’s U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion, the court “would have felt
entirely obligated to impose a sentence at the upper end of that guideline range.”
However, the court decided to “act favorably upon that motion” and sentenced
Defendant to a term of imprisonment below the upper end of the Guidelines range.
The court did not believe that a sentence “less than the statutory minimum of 120
months” would be adequate, so it sentenced Defendant to 120 months.
In light of the above, Defendant’s Guidelines range “played ‘a relevant part
[in] the framework the [sentencing] judge used’ in imposing the sentence,” and
thus, the sentence was “based on” that Guidelines range, making Defendant
eligible for a sentence reduction. Koons, 138 S. Ct. at 1788 (alterations in original)
(quoting Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765, 1778 (2018)). Both parties
agree that Defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. We vacate the sentence
and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this
disposition.
VACATED AND REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --