USA V. JAMES TEMPLETON, No. 17-30003 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-30003 D.C. No. 2:04-cr-00278-RAJ v. MEMORANDUM* JAMES TEMPLETON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. James Templeton 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, and we affirm. Templeton contends that he is eligible for 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). 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 Templeton’s contention, section 3582(c)(2) did not authorize the district court to apply a two-level reduction for safety valve because such a reduction was not applied at Templeton’s original sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 1B.10(b)(1) (when determining a defendant’s amended guideline range, the court “shall substitute only the [amended provisions] for the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected”); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). This is true even if the district court erred by failing to apply a safety valve reduction at the original sentencing. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831. Because Templeton’s 240-month sentence is below his amended guideline range of 262 to 327 months, he is ineligible for a reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (the district court may not reduce a defendant’s sentence “to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range”). AFFIRMED. 2 17-30003
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.
