USA V. WILLIAM STRONG, No. 18-10100 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-10100 D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00078-JAM v. WILLIAM STRONG, a.k.a. Wee Wee Strong, a.k.a. William Henry Strong, a.k.a. Wee Wee, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. William Strong appeals from the district court’s denial of his amended motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction. 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). Strong contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Guidelines because recent California state court orders, which reclassified his previous drug felony convictions as misdemeanors, have affected his designation as a career offender. We review de novo whether the district court had authority to reduce a defendant’s sentence under section 3582. See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Strong’s challenge to his career offender designation is not cognizable under section 3582(c)(2), which authorizes sentencing reductions solely where the defendant’s Guidelines range has been lowered by an amendment to the Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1), (b)(1); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010). The district court properly concluded that Strong was ineligible for a reduction because Amendment 782 did not affect his status as a career offender, and therefore did not lower his Guidelines range. See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 18-10100
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.
