USA V. LEWIS MITCHELL, No. 16-30169 (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED APR 24 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF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. 16-30169 D.C. No. 4:07-cr-00019-SEH v. MEMORANDUM* LEWIS LYNN MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017* Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Lewis Lynn Mitchell 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. Mitchell 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). Mitchell’s request for oral argument is denied. Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Mitchell was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not “based on” a Guidelines range that was lowered by Amendment 782 and he is ineligible for a reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, contrary to Mitchell’s contention, the district court 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). Mitchell’s contention that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United States v. Waters, 648 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 2011). AFFIRMED. 2 16-30169
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.
