United States of America v. Isaac Monge

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ISAAC MONGE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10458
D.C. No.
4:10-cr-00865-DCB-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: BEA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,*** District Judge.
FILED
FEB 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

Issac Monge appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a
reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Monge argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under United States
Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. We review “de novo whether a district
court has jurisdiction to modify an otherwise final sentence.” United States v.
Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). A district court has
jurisdiction to modify an imposed sentence where the “defendant . . . has been
sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). Monge is not eligible for sentence reduction, because his sentence was
not “based on” a subsequently lowered sentencing range. Id.; see also United
States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir. 2017). Neither the
prosecution nor the defense argued for a sentence reduction based on the
Guidelines, and the district court did not impose a sentence based on the applicable
Guidelines range. Rather, the district court stated (1) it was departing substantially
below both the Guidelines and the mandatory minimum; and (2) the sentence was
based on Monge’s conduct herein.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --