USA V. LUIS CASACA, No. 15-10382 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-10382 D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00209-SOM MEMORANDUM* LUIS FERNANDO CASACA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Susan Oki Mollway, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Luis Fernando Casaca 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. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v. * 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). Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm. Casaca contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly concluded that Casaca is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. To the extent that Casaca seeks to challenge the sentencing court’s original calculation of his Guidelines range or to otherwise have his sentence reduced in light of mitigating factors, these claims are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 831 (2010) (alleged errors committed at the original sentencing hearing cannot be corrected under section 3582(c)(2), which does not permit a plenary resentencing proceeding). AFFIRMED. 2 15-10382

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.