Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0971-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Romero RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10390
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 8, 2017 
    
    Filed May 11, 2017
    Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU — Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Thomas Romero Ruiz, Pro Se
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Thomas Romero Ruiz appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.O. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ruiz 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. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The record reflects that Amendment 782 was in effect at the time that Ruiz was sentenced and he was sentenced under the amended Guidelines. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that Ruiz was not eligible for a sentence reduction, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74, and Ruiz’s equal protection rights were not violated.

Ruiz’s argument that he should have received an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility at his original sentencing is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (alleged errors at the original sentencing are “outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2)”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.