United States v. Sergio Ramirez ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50193
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00229-GAF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SERGIO RAMIREZ, a.k.a. Edgar Carlon,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Ramirez 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.
Ramirez contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under
*
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).
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a
district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See
United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Ramirez’s
contention, the record reflects that the sentencing court determined that his offense
involved 4.8 kilograms of actual methamphetamine. Even after Amendment 782,
the base offense level for that drug amount is 38. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1)
(2014). Because Amendment 782 did not lower Ramirez’s applicable guideline
range, the district court correctly concluded that Ramirez is ineligible for a
sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B);
Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74.
Ramirez’s other claims are not properly before us because they are outside
the scope of a section 3582(c)(2) motion. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.
817, 831 (2010).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-50193