NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 25 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 19-50028

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00509-CAB-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ANABEL OCEGUEDA,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                 Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 18, 2019**

Before:      FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Anabel Ocegueda appeals from the district court’s order denying her 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.

      Ocegueda contends that she is eligible for 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, 

, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to

Ocegueda’s contention, the district court properly calculated her amended

Guidelines range without considering the departures for fast-track and

overrepresentation of criminal history that the court granted at Ocegueda’s original

sentencing. See United States v. Ornelas, 

, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2016).

Because Ocegueda received a 168-month sentence, which is below the minimum

of her amended Guidelines range, the district court properly denied her motion for

a sentence reduction. 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.”). Contrary to Ocegueda’s contention, United States v. D.M., 

(9th Cir. 2017), does not compel a contrary result.

      AFFIRMED.




                                         2                                   19-50028