United States of America v. Rebekah Fouquet

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REBEKAH FOUQUET,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-10309
D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00453-APG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 18, 2016**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Rebekah Fouquet appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion
for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JUL 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Fouquet contends that the district court erred in holding that it lacked
authority to grant her request for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the
Guidelines. We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence
reduction. See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). A
district court may only reduce a sentence under section 3582(c)(2) when the
defendant’s applicable Guidelines range has been lowered. See 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), cmt. n.1(A); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74.
As the district court found, Amendment 782 did not lower Fouquet’s Guidelines
range. Thus, notwithstanding Fouquet’s policy and equity-based arguments, the
district court properly denied her motion. Moreover, contrary to Fouquet’s
contention, the rule of lenity does not assist her because section 3582(c)(2) is
unambiguous. See Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381, 387 (1980) (rule of
lenity applies only when a statute is ambiguous).
AFFIRMED.
15-10309 2

-- 2 of 2 --