Case ID: f-appx_589/html/0368-01.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. Luciano RAMIREZ-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-16786.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    Filed Jan. 7, 2015.
    Justin Lee, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Krista Hart, Law Offices of Krista Hart, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOULD and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEZ, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court dismissed Luciano Ramirez-Salazar’s most recent 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as second or successive. Ramirez-Salazar concedes that his motion contains at most one claim that is not so barred — a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction proceeding.

We need not decide whether that claim is also second or successive, because the claim is without merit in any event. Ramirez-Salazar did not have a constitutional right to counsel during his § 8582(c)(2) proceeding. United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 512-13 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam). Ramirez-Salazar argues that our holding in Townsend is no longer good law, but the intervening Supreme Court decisions he cites are not “clearly irreconcilable” with Townsend, see Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). With “no constitutional right to counsel, [Ramirez-Salazar] could not be deprived of the effective assistance of counsel.” Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586, 587-88, 102 S.Ct. 1300, 71 L.Ed.2d 475 (1982) (per curiam).

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