United States v. Raymond Shannon
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Raymond Shannon appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Shannon contends that Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, retroactively amending U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 with respect to offenses involving crack cocaine, authorizes the district court to resentence him. The district court did not err by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) to modify Shannon’s sentence, as he would have been subject to the same sentencing range had Amendment 706 been in place at the time he was sentenced. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (2000) (providing that the career offender base offense level applies where it is greater than the applicable base offense level under § 2D1.1). Thus, Shannon’s “sentence is not ‘based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,’ as required by § 3582(c)(2).” See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2)); see also United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir.2009).