USA v. Lee Eddin, No. 09-10311 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 11 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 09-10311 D.C. No. 2:06-CR-00246-WBS v. MEMORANDUM * LEE ANDREW EDDINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 5, 2011 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Lee Andrew Eddins appeals from the district court s order denying his motion for a reduced sentence, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Eddins contends that the district court erred by failing to reduce his 158 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). month sentence pursuant to Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the sentencing range for offenses involving crack cocaine. The district court did not err by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to modify Eddins sentence because, notwithstanding the fact that he received a downward departure for substantial assistance, his ultimate sentence was determined using the career offender guideline as the starting point. Thus, Eddins sentence is not based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, as required by § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, the district court did not err by denying as moot the government s motion to withdraw from the parties stipulated motion. AFFIRMED. 2 09-10311

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.