USA V. CHRISTOPHER NIU, No. 16-10305 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED APR 24 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF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. 16-10305 D.C. No. 1:06-cr-00594-SOM v. MEMORANDUM* CHRISTOPHER NIU, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Susan Oki Mollway, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Christopher Niu 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. Niu contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment * 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). Appellant’s request for oral argument is denied. 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). Contrary to Niu’s contention, the district court properly followed the procedure set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010). In so doing, the district court correctly determined that Niu is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because his sentence is already below the minimum of the amended guideline 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.”). Niu’s contentions that the government breached the plea agreement and that the district court failed to explain the sentence adequately are outside the scope of this proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831. AFFIRMED. 2 16-10305

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.