Case ID: f-appx_223/html/0630-01.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. Howard E. LEASURE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-50603.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
    
    Filed Feb. 28, 2007.
    Becky S. Walker, Esq., Michael J. Raphael, Esq., James M. Aquilina, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Law Offices of Alissa Sawano Peterson, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Howard E. Leasure appeals from the district court’s denial of his request for sentence modification. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Leasure contends that he is entitled to re-sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. This contention is foreclosed by Carrington v. United States, 470 F.3d 920, 923 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that § 3582(c) does not apply to a person seeking re-sentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)).

Leasure also contends that he is entitled to re-sentencing based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). However, we construe Leasure’s Rule 60(b) motion as a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 2648-49, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005); Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc). The district court did not have jurisdiction to consider this motion because Leasure did not obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Burton v. Stewart, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 793, 796-99, 166 L.Ed.2d 628 (2007).

Leasure’s request that we now authorize him to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is denied because the new rules of constitutional law that he purports to rely upon have not been made retroactive by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

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