Opinion
No. 15-10120
12-15-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JACK MARTIN VOSE, Defendant - Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00734-CKJ MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Jack Martin Vose 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.
Vose contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Vose is not entitled to a sentence reduction because his sentence was not "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Rather, his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii). The district court properly denied relief. See Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095-96.
Vose's contention that he was not subject to the enhanced mandatory minimum because the judgment does not cite 21 U.S.C. § 851(a) is unavailing. The mandatory minimum is set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii). --------
Vose's additional claims do not support relief under section 3582(c)(2). See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010) (section 3582(c) does not permit a "plenary resentencing hearing").
AFFIRMED.