REYES v. UNITED STATES
No. 16-50059
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
February 21, 2017
406
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Filed February 21, 2017
Helen H. Hong, David Daniel Leshner, Cynthia Lynne Millsaps, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, Todd W. Robinson, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Frank Reyes, Pro Se
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM **
Frank Reyes appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under
Reyes contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court correctly concluded that Reyes is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable sentencing range. See
See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Finally, Reyes is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding the drug quantities attributable to him because that issue is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683 (section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a “plenary resentencing proceeding“).
AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES v. BETANCOURT
No. 16-50059, 16-50066
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
February 21, 2017
406
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kannis BETANCOURT; Dulce Gianna Medsenia Brito, Defendants-Appellants.
Submitted February 14, 2017 *
Filed February 21, 2017
* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Holly A. Sullivan, Law Office of Holly A. Sullivan, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM **
In these companion appeals, Kannis Betancourt and Dulce Gianna Medsenia Brito appeal the 36-month sentences imposed following their guilty-plea convictions for making false statements to federal officers, in violation of
Appellants contend that the district court violated their due process rights by failing to apply the clear and convincing standard of proof to its finding that they knew there were drugs in the car. This argument fails because the record reflects that the court expressly declined to find that the defendants knowingly imported drugs. Instead, the court stated that it was foreseeable to both appellants, based on their admitted belief that they were smuggling drug proceeds, that the car might contain drugs. Contrary to appellants’ argument, this was a reasonable inference from the record, given their admissions and the circumstances of the offense. Thus, the court did not violate appellants’ due process rights in imposing their sentences. See United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2009) (due process violated only when the sentencing court relies on evidence that “lacks some minimal indicium of reliability” (internal quotations omitted)).
Moreover, the court‘s remaining inferences, including that appellants were likely attempting to avoid detection when crossing the border, were not clearly erroneous, given their admissions regarding the purpose of their crossing. See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record.“).
Finally, appellants contend that their sentences are substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the above-Guidelines sentences in light of the
AFFIRMED.