Case ID: f-appx_436/html/0783-01.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. Juan Francisco VALERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30136.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 7, 2011.
    
      Fred Richard Curtner, III, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Francisco Valera appeals from the 262-month sentence imposed following the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduced sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Valera contends that the district court erred at the section 3582(c)(2) proceeding by: (1) concluding that the Sentencing Commission has the authority to limit the district court’s ability to look at the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when imposing a modified sentence; (2) failing to address adequately the 100:1 crack/powder disparity; and (3) treating the Guidelines as mandatory. These contentions are foreclosed by Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692-93, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (section 3582(c)(2) proceedings do not implicate the Sixth Amendment interests identified in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)).

Valera also contends the policy statement articulated in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 is invalid because it was promulgated in violation of procedural requirements. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Fox, 631 F.3d 1128, 1131-33 (9th Cir. 2011).

We deny the government’s March 22, 2011, motion for summary affirmance as moot.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.