22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T490,MEMORANDUM Vanessa Maria Bishop appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 8582 (c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Bishop contends that she is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Contrary to Bishop’s contention, the district court properly calculated her amended Guidelines range without considering the four-level fast-track departure that the court granted at her original sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); United States v. Ornelas, 825 F.3d 548, 555 (9th Cir. 2016). Because Bishop received a 70-month sentence, which is below the amended Guidelines range, the district court properly denied her motion for a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shah not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 8582 (c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.’’). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publi-, cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4bd,

MEMORANDUM

Vanessa Maria Bishop appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 8582 (c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Bishop contends that she is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Contrary to Bishop’s contention, the district court properly calculated her amended Guidelines range without considering the four-level fast-track departure that the court granted at her original sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); United States v. Ornelas, 825 F.3d 548, 555 (9th Cir. 2016). Because Bishop received a 70-month sentence, which is below the amended Guidelines range, the district court properly denied her motion for a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shah not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 8582 (c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.’’).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publi-, cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.