United States v. Steve Rankin

MEMORANDUM

Steve Rankin appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Rankin contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under the Fair Sentencing Act and subsequent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines because a reduction was expressly contemplated in the parties’ binding plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a defendant’s sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir.2012).

The district court correctly determined that Rankin is not eligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence was based on a stipulation in the parties’ binding plea agreement, and not on a sentencing range that has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission, as required by section 3582(c)(2). See id. at 927-28 . The plea agreement does not call for Rankin to be sentenced within a particular Guidelines sentencing range nor, contrary to Rankin’s contention, is any such Guidelines range expressly used in the agreement…