Case ID: f-appx_574/html/0792-01.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. Jorge ROCA-SUAREZ, a.k.a. George Roca, a.k.a. Jorge Roca, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50393.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 22, 2014.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Christopher Khoo Pelham, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jorge Roca-Suarez, Taft, CA, pro se.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jorge Roca-Suarez 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.

Roca-Suarez contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 591 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 Roca-Suarez’s contention, Amendment 591 did not alter the Guidelines section applicable to his offense of conviction or the calculation of his Guidelines range under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 591 (Supp.2003); see also United States v. McEnry, 659 F.3d 893, 898-99 (9th Cir.2011) (discussing changes made by Amendment 591). Because Amendment 591 did not lower Roca-Suarez’s Guidelines range, the district court lacked authority to reduce his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 674.

Roca-Suarez also contends that the district court erred by failing to explain the reasons for its denial of his motion. Because the court had no authority to modify Roca-Suarez’s sentence, however, its summary denial was not improper.

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