Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0592-01.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. Samneuk BUNMA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10419.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 18, 2012.
    Elana Landau, Esquire, Kathleen Anne Servatius, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Samneuk Bunma, Youngstown, OH, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Samneuk Bunma appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Bunma contends that he is entitled to be resentenced in light of the Guideline amendments promulgated by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to the authority it was granted under the Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”). The result of that directive was Amendment 750, made retroactive in part by Amendment 759, which amended the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine, and accounted for specified aggravating and mitigating factors in certain drug cases. The amendments to section 2D1.1 have no effect on Bunma’s applicable Guidelines range because he was convicted of a marijuana offense, and because the portion of the amendment accounting for mitigating factors was not made retroactive. See U.S.S.G. app. C, Amendments 750 and 759 (2011). Thus, Bunma’s “sentence is not ‘based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,’ as required by § 3582(c)(2).” See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir.2009).

Bunma’s remaining claims are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) motion.

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