Summary
denying motion to reduce sentence pursuant to section 3582(c) and Amendment 782 "[b]ecause [defendant] was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1"
Summary of this case from United States v. SearceyOpinion
No. 16-30007
01-25-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOUIS JAMES ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00051-BMM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Louis James Romero 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.
Romero contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). Because Romero was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the district court correctly determined that he is not eligible for a sentence reduction. See id.
Contrary to Romero's argument, the district court adequately explained its determination and it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010) (only if defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction does the district court proceed to the step of considering the section 3553(a) sentencing factors). Romero's arguments that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender and that the district court violated double jeopardy when it enhanced his sentence based on a prior conviction are not cognizable in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831.
AFFIRMED.