United States v. Kincaid

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-5270 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 4:13-cr-00818-PJH-2 v. MEMORANDUM* DEANTE TERRANCE KINCAID, AKA Tay-Tay, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Deante Terrance Kincaid 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. * 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).  As the district court concluded, Kincaid is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines because the amendment did not lower his Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (a sentence reduction is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) if the amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range”); United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 2009). Kincaid argues that the district court nevertheless should have granted relief because its treatment of his criminal history violated double jeopardy. This argument, however, may not be raised in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010) (sentencing issues unrelated to the guideline amendment are outside the scope of a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding). Because the district court correctly found Kincaid ineligible for a sentence reduction, we affirm. The motion for sentencing transcripts is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 2 24-5270