United States v. Lino Santana Pedroza
Opinion
Opinion
On October 19, 1998, Lino Santana Pe-droza pleaded guilty to three drug related counts. Consistent with the terms of his plea agreement with the government, the district court sentenced Pedroza to a term of 92 months followed by a mandatory consecutive sentence of 60 months for possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. In response to the government’s Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion, the court later reduced Pedroza’s total sentence to 130 months. Pedroza challenges the extent of the reduction, arguing that it did not adequately reflect the breadth of his cooperation.
DISCUSSION
The right to appeal is statutory, not constitutional, so a party’s claim “must come within the terms of[an] applicable statute” to establish appellate jurisdiction. United States v. Arishi, 54 F.3d 596, 597 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 656 , 97 S.Ct. 2034 , 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977)). Appeals of a sentence reduction pursuant to Rule 35(b) are controlled exclusively by 18 U.S.C. § 3742 . Id. at 599 (holding that “the exclusive avenue of appeal of rulings on Rule 35(b) motions is 18 U.S.C. § 3742”).