Opinion
No. 19-10029
08-22-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GRACIELA QUINONEZ RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00874-RS-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Graciela Quinonez Rivera appeals pro se from the district court's order denying 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.
Rivera argues that Amendment 782 to the Guidelines lowered her base offense level by two, and therefore authorized the district court to reduce her sentence. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Spears, 824 F.3d 908, 913 (9th Cir. 2016). The district court correctly concluded that it did not have that authority because, even after the Amendment, Rivera's base offense level remained 38 given the large drug quantity involved in her offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2014). Because Amendment 782 did not lower Rivera's applicable guideline range, the district court did not err in denying her motion. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); Spears, 824 F.3d at 916.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach the government's alternate argument.
AFFIRMED.