USA V. ALVARO DOMARCO-SANCHEZ, No. 15-10498 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 1 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-10498 D.C. No. 2:94-cr-00251-GEB MEMORANDUM* ALVARO DOMARCO-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Alvaro Domarco-Sanchez 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. Domarco-Sanchez 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 district court correctly concluded that Domarco-Sanchez 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. Because the district court lacked authority to reduce Domarco-Sanchez’s sentence, it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010). To the extent that Domarco-Sanchez seeks to challenge his sentence as procedurally erroneous and substantively unreasonable, these claims are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831 (section 3582(c)(2) does not permit a plenary resentencing proceeding). AFFIRMED. 2 15-10498

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.