United States of America v. Christopher Lee Osterloth

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LEE OSTERLOTH,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-30267
D.C. No. 6:06-cr-00010-DWM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Lee Osterloth 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.
Osterloth 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).
FILED
SEP 29 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-30267
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). The record makes
clear that the district court imposed Osterloth’s sentence for reasons unrelated to
the guideline range lowered by Amendment 782. Because Osterloth’s sentence
was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission,” he is ineligible for a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2); United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th
Cir. 2017). Moreover, contrary to Osterloth’s contention, the record reflects that
the district court gave due consideration to his motion, consulted the relevant
documents, and explained its reasons for denying the motion.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --