USA V. REBEKAH FOUQUET, No. 15-10309 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 15-10309 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00453-APG v. MEMORANDUM* REBEKAH FOUQUET, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 18, 2016** Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Rebekah Fouquet appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * 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). Fouquet contends that the district court erred in holding that it lacked authority to grant her request for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Guidelines. We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). A district court may only reduce a sentence under section 3582(c)(2) when the defendant’s applicable Guidelines range has been lowered. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), cmt. n.1(A); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. As the district court found, Amendment 782 did not lower Fouquet’s Guidelines range. Thus, notwithstanding Fouquet’s policy and equity-based arguments, the district court properly denied her motion. Moreover, contrary to Fouquet’s contention, the rule of lenity does not assist her because section 3582(c)(2) is unambiguous. See Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381, 387 (1980) (rule of lenity applies only when a statute is ambiguous). AFFIRMED. 2 15-10309

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.