NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-30114

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00035-TMB-1 v.

MEMORANDUM* DERNEVAL RODNELL DIMMER, AKA Pedro Dimmer, AKA Jabba,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2019** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Derneval Rodnell Dimmer 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.

Dimmer 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 had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Dimmer’s contention, the district court properly followed the procedure set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010). As this court has previously found, the district court correctly determined that Dimmer is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because his sentence is already below the minimum of the amended guideline range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”).

We do not reach Dimmer’s additional arguments because they are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831.

AFFIRMED.

2 19-30114