ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.

The defendant has filed a second motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), seeking a reduction in his sentence on the basis of Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines which revises the Drug Quantity Table in USSG § 2D1.1 and reduces by two levels the offense level applicable to many drug trafficking offenses. The Court denied the defendant's first motion because Amendment 782 does not operate to lower the guideline range for the quantity of pseudoephedrine (converted to methamphetamine equivalency) attributed to defendant. Doc. 420. The defendant reiterates the same arguments previously made and asks the Court to exercise discretion to reduce his sentence. Doc. 425.

As was the case when the defendant filed his previous motion, the Court cannot grant the defendant's motion to reduce sentence. A district court's authority to modify a sentenced is constrained by the Sentencing Commission. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-826 (2010). The Sentencing Guidelines make clear that "[a] reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if . . . an amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (a)(2)(B). Where application of the pertinent amendment does not result in a different sentencing range, no reduction of sentence may occur. United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673-74 (9th Cir. 2009). Amendment 782 has no impact on calculation of the defendant's guideline range.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant's motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.