Opinion
No. 19-10041
12-17-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANNY PEREDA, AKA T-Mighty, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00119-WBS-5 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Danny Pereda appeals pro se 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, and we affirm.
Pereda argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). As the district court concluded, Pereda was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Contrary to Pereda's assertion, the fact that the parties stipulated to, and the district court accepted, a sentence below the career-offender guideline range does not make him eligible for a reduction. For purposes of a sentence reduction motion, the "applicable" guideline range is the pre-variance range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); United States v. Pleasant, 704 F.3d 808, 811-12 (9th Cir. 2013), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Because the pre-variance range here was the career-offender range, which was not lowered by Amendment 782, Pereda is ineligible for a sentence reduction. See Pleasant, 704 F.3d at 812; Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731.
Pereda's remaining claims are outside the scope of this section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010).
AFFIRMED.