Case ID: f-appx_416/html/0656-01.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. Gonzalo GOMEZ-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10249.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 28, 2011.
    Michael Lee, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gonzalo Gomez-Morales, Winton, NC, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, 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

Gonzalo Gomez-Morales appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for modification of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gomez contends that Amendment 591 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, clarifying the application of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2, authorizes the district court to resentenee him. The record reflects that Gomez’s base offense level was calculated under § 2Dl.l(c)(l), rather than § 2D1.2; therefore Amendment 591 does not apply to him. Accordingly, Gomez cannot demonstrate that his sentence is 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).

Gomez also contends that he is entitled to relief under Amendment 591 because the drug quantity used to calculate his base offense level was determined by the sentencing court, rather than a jury. This argument is foreclosed. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) do not implicate the Sixth Amendment right to have essential facts found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).

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