USA V. CHRISTOPHER DURBIN, No. 15-30266 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED OCT 3 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-30266 D.C. No. 9:11-cr-00062-DWM MEMORANDUM* CHRISTOPHER RYAN DURBIN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 27, 2016** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Christopher Ryan Durbin 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. We review de novo whether a district court had 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. Durbin contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court correctly concluded that Durbin is ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence is already below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”). Contrary to Durbin’s contentions, the application of section 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) to his case does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, see United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680-81 (9th Cir. 2014), and section 3582(c)(2) proceedings “do not implicate the interests identified in Booker.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 828 (2010). AFFIRMED. 2 15-30266

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.