USA V. ISAAC MONGE, No. 16-10458 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-10458 D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00865-DCB-LAB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* ISAAC MONGE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 16, 2018** San Francisco, California Before: BEA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,*** District Judge. * 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). *** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. Issac Monge appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Monge argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under United States Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. We review “de novo whether a district court has jurisdiction to modify an otherwise final sentence.” United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). A district court has jurisdiction to modify an imposed sentence where the “defendant . . . has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Monge is not eligible for sentence reduction, because his sentence was not “based on” a subsequently lowered sentencing range. Id.; see also United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir. 2017). Neither the prosecution nor the defense argued for a sentence reduction based on the Guidelines, and the district court did not impose a sentence based on the applicable Guidelines range. Rather, the district court stated (1) it was departing substantially below both the Guidelines and the mandatory minimum; and (2) the sentence was based on Monge’s conduct herein. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
