USA V. CHRISTOPHER OSTERLOTH, No. 14-30267 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 29 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-30267 D.C. No. 6:06-cr-00010-DWM v. MEMORANDUM* CHRISTOPHER LEE OSTERLOTH, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Christopher Lee Osterloth 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. Osterloth contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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). The record makes clear that the district court imposed Osterloth’s sentence for reasons unrelated to the guideline range lowered by Amendment 782. Because Osterloth’s sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” he is ineligible for a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017). Moreover, contrary to Osterloth’s contention, the record reflects that the district court gave due consideration to his motion, consulted the relevant documents, and explained its reasons for denying the motion. AFFIRMED. 2 14-30267

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.