ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S "UNOPPOSED PETITION AND/OR MOTION FOR REDUCTION/MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE"

Re: Dkt. No. 45

EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.

On September 4, 2018, Defendant Enrique Quintero pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to four counts charged in two case numbers: two counts of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and two counts of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(viii).1 Defendant was thereafter sentenced to four concurrent custodial terms of 240 months. Judgment was entered accordingly on October 12, 2006.

Defendant now petitions or moves for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 based on Amendment 782. Dkt. No. 45. Defendant argues he is entitled to a reduction because, though the Probation Officer determined he was a career offender, his plea agreement provides for a different calculation that was affected by the amendment. The Government argues otherwise. The Government is correct.

"For purposes of a motion for a sentence reduction, the applicable guideline range is the pre-departure, pre-variance range calculated by the court at sentencing." United States v. Hill, 674 Fed. App'x 738 (9th Cir. 2017). This is true even if the defendant's plea agreement calculates a different sentencing range. See id. (citing United States v. Pleasant, 704 F.3d 808, 811-12 (9th Cir. 2013)). Furthermore, a sentence reduction is inconsistent with the policy underlying § 1B1.10 if none of its specified amendments apply to the defendant. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2).

Here, the Presentence Investigation Report reveals the pre-departure, pre-variance guideline range of 188 to 235 months was calculated based on the Career Offender provisions in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. This is the same guideline range identified by the court at the sentencing hearing (Tr., Dkt. No. 54 in Case No. 5:11-cr-0050-EJD, at 4:19-5:2), and it is this range, not the one calculated in the plea agreement, that is applicable for the purposes of a sentence reduction. See Hill, 674 Fed. App'x at 738. Because § 4B1.1 was unaffected by Amendment 782, Defendant is not entitled to relief by the express terms of § 1B1.10(a)(2).

Accordingly, Defendant's "unopposed petition and/or Defendant's motion for reduction/modification of sentence" (Dkt. No. 45) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.