USA V. SOCORRO LOYA-CHAVEZ, No. 18-10009 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-10009 D.C. No. 3:98-cr-00133-CRB v. MEMORANDUM* SOCORRO LOYA-CHAVEZ, a.k.a. Carlos Guerro, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Socorro Loya-Chavez 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. Loya-Chavez 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). Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). Loya-Chavez was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not “based on” a Guideline that was lowered by Amendment 782, and he is ineligible for a reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731. The Supreme Court cases Loya-Chavez cites do not support a contrary result. Moreover, Loya-Chavez is incorrect that the district court could have reduced his sentence to account for alleged sentencing disparities and his post-sentencing rehabilitation. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010) (district court can only consider whether a reduction is warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) if it first determines that a reduction is authorized). AFFIRMED. 2 18-10009
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.
