USA V. ELAINE BESTON, No. 15-30218 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-30218 D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00007-SEH MEMORANDUM* ELAINE BESTON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 9, 2017** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Elaine Beston appeals from the district court’s order granting in part her 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. * 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). Beston’s request for oral argument is denied. The district court reduced Beston’s sentence from 192 to 180 months. Beston contends that she is entitled to a further sentence reduction. The record reflects, however, that Beston was ineligible for a reduction because her sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. RodriguezSoriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017). Nevertheless, we will not enlarge Beston’s sentence because “a defendant who appeals but faces no crossappeal can proceed anticipating that the appellate court will not enlarge [her] sentence.” Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 252 (2008). AFFIRMED. 2 15-30218

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.