Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derneval Rodnell DIMMER, aka Pedro Dimmer, aka Jabba, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-30114

Decided: November 26, 2019

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Kimberly R. Sayers-Fay, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Anne Veldhuis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Bryan Wilson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee Derneval Rodnell Dimmer, Pro Se


Derneval Rodnell Dimmer 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.

Dimmer 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. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Dimmer's contention, the district court properly followed the procedure set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). As this court has previously found, the district court correctly determined that Dimmer is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because his sentence is already below the minimum of the amended guideline range. 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.”).

We do not reach Dimmer's additional arguments because they are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683.


Copied to clipboard