United States v. Randy Mitchell

MEMORANDUM

Randy Mitchell appeals 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 whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v. Pleasant, 704 F.3d 808, 810 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 824 , 187 L.Ed.2d 688 (2013), and we affirm.

Mitchell contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. This contention fails because Mitchell was sentenced as a Career Offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not “based on” a Guidelines range that was lowered by the amendment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2); United States v. Charles, 749 F.3d 767, 770-71 (9th Cir.2014). Moreover, a sentence reduction would not be consistent with U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(l), the applicable policy statement, because the applicable Guidelines here are the Career Offender Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2); Pleasant, 704 F.3d at 811-12. This is true even though the district court varied downward from the Career Offender range at sentencing. See Pleasant,…