United States v. Eladio Bouza

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 12-50238 · 2013-12-09 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eladio Soto BOUZA, A.K.A. Fantoma, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: William C. Canby, Jr. (author), Thomas, Stephen S. Trott

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 09 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50238 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:90-cr-00856-JAH v. MEMORANDUM* ELADIO SOTO BOUZA, a.k.a. Fantoma, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Eladio Soto Bouza appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the district court had * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). authority to modify a defendant’s sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

Bouza contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction because the government failed to comply with the requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851 at his original sentencing. This contention does not support relief under section 3582(c)(2). See Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691 (2010) (section 3582(c)(2) authorizes “only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding”). Bouza is not entitled to relief under section 3582(c)(2) because he was sentenced in 1991 to a life term, the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (1991), and not based on a Guidelines range that was subsequently lowered. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also United States v. Augustine, 712 F.3d 1290, 1295 (9th Cir. 2013) (the Fair Sentencing Act’s new mandatory minimums do not apply to defendants who were sentenced before the Act’s effective date).

AFFIRMED.