UNITED STATES v. OCEGUEDA (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Anabel Ocegueda appeals 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.

Ocegueda contends that she is eligible for 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. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Ocegueda's contention, the district court properly calculated her amended Guidelines range without considering the departures for fast-track and overrepresentation of criminal history that the court granted at Ocegueda's original sentencing. See United States v. Ornelas, 825 F.3d 548, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2016). Because Ocegueda received a 168-month sentence, which is below the minimum of her amended Guidelines range, the district court properly denied her motion for a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”). Contrary to Ocegueda's contention, United States v. D.M., 869 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2017), does not compel a contrary result.

AFFIRMED.