United States v. Felix Troncoso

MEMORANDUM

Felix Troncoso 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 jurisdiction to modify a sentence under section 3582. See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

Troncoso contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 750, which amended the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D 1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine. Troncoso is not eligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence was based on the parties’ stipulation in a binding plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), and not “on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” as required by section 3582(c)(2). See Freeman v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 2695-96 , 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) (Sotoma-yor, J., concurring and controlling). Although a Guidelines sentencing range is specified in Troncoso’s plea agreement, the stipulated sentence is not within that range. Troncoso’s contention that the parties nevertheless based the…