UNITED STATES v. PEREDA (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

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, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

AFFIRMED.