USA V. SHANE HOSKINS, No. 16-30289 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 2 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-30289 D.C. No. 9:04-cr-00035-DWM v. MEMORANDUM* SHANE DOUGLAS HOSKINS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Shane Douglas Hoskins 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. * 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). Hoskins contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under 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). Contrary to Hoskins’s argument, his guidelines range remained life even under Amendment 782. Thus, his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and the district court correctly concluded that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction. See Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673; see also United States v. Ornelas, 825 F.3d 548, 552-53 (9th Cir. 2016) (defendant’s applicable guideline range is determined without consideration of any departure or variance). Hoskins’s argument that the court nevertheless had discretion to grant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) is without merit. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-30 (2010). AFFIRMED. 2 16-30289

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.