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:T437,MEMORANDUM ** Elaine Beston appeals from the district court’s order granting in part her motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. The district court reduced Bestoris sentence from 192 to 180 months. Beston contends that she is entitled to a further sentence reduction. The record reflects, however, that Beston was ineligible for a reduction because her sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2); United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017). Nevertheless, we.will not enlarge Bestoris sentence because “a defendant who appeals but faces no cross-appeal can proceed anticipating that the appellate court will not enlarge [her] sentence.” Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 252 , 128 S.Ct. 2559 , 171 L.Ed.2d 399 (2008). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T452,

MEMORANDUM **

Elaine Beston appeals from the district court’s order granting in part her motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court reduced Bestoris sentence from 192 to 180 months. Beston contends that she is entitled to a further sentence reduction. The record reflects, however, that Beston was ineligible for a reduction because her sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2); United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017). Nevertheless, we.will not enlarge Bestoris sentence because “a defendant who appeals but faces no cross-appeal can proceed anticipating that the appellate court will not enlarge [her] sentence.” Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 252 , 128 S.Ct. 2559 , 171 L.Ed.2d 399 (2008).

AFFIRMED.

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