United States v. Tomas Castaneda-Jimenez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-50480 · 2012-07-27 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tomas CASTANEDA-JIMENEZ, A.K.A. Pedro, Defendant—Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Mary M. Schroeder (author), Thomas, Barry G. Silverman

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 27 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50480 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:04-cr-00603-JAH v. MEMORANDUM * TOMAS CASTANEDA-JIMENEZ, a.k.a. Pedro, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 17, 2012 ** Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Tomas Castaneda-Jimenez appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his term of imprisonment 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 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). Accordingly, Castaneda- Jimenez’s request for oral argument is denied. Castaneda-Jimenez contends that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the sentencing range for offenses involving crack cocaine. This claim lacks merit. The record reflects that Castaneda-Jimenez’s applicable Guidelines range was not altered by Amendment 706 because his range was based on the total drug quantities attributed to him, which were sufficient to warrant his sentencing range even if the crack cocaine amounts were disregarded.

Therefore, Castaneda-Jimenez’s sentence is not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” as required by section 3582(c)(2), and the district court did not err in denying his motion. See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673-74 (9th Cir. 2009).

Castaneda-Jimenez’s remaining claims are not cognizable under section 3582(c)(2).

AFFIRMED.

2 11-50480