Case ID: f-appx_241/html/0405-01.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. Melvin GIPSON, a/k/a Seal C, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-50084.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 9, 2007 .
    Filed July 16, 2007.
    Becky S. Walker, Esq., Timothy J. Sea-right, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Melvin Gipson, San Pedro, CA, pro se.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Gipson's request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Melvin Gipson appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court properly denied Gipson’s Rule 60(b) motion on the merits. Gipson contends, both in his motion and on appeal, that the district court improperly relied upon an abstract of judgment in assessing criminal history points based upon a 1991 drug conviction. In support of this contention, Gipson relies upon United States v. Navidad-Marcos, 367 F.3d 903 (9th Cir.2004). However, NavidadMarcos, which involved the level of proof required to establish that a prior conviction qualified as a “drug trafficking” offense so as to support an aggravated felony enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1), is inapposite to this case which involves the calculation of criminal history.

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