USA V. STEVEN RICHARD, No. 15-30053 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 29 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-30053 D.C. No. 4:07-cr-00003-SEH v. MEMORANDUM* STEVEN TYRONE RICHARD, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Steven Tyrone Richard appeals 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. Richard 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 Richard’s sentence, and later reduced Richard’s sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), for reasons unrelated to the guideline range lowered by Amendment 782. Because Richard’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). Accordingly, contrary to Richard’s contention, the district court had no cause to consider his argument that a reduction was warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010). Richard’s motion for remand or summary reversal is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-30053
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.
