Case ID: f-appx_274/html/0602-01.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. Pierre STUCKEY, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 07-50313.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 15, 2008.
    
    Filed April 22, 2008.
    Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Bonnie L. Hobbs, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Pierre Stuckey, Atwater, CA, pro se.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pierre Stuckey appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The denial of a motion to modify a sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Sprague, 135 F.3d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir.1998).

Stuckey was convicted on March 3, 1993 of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). Stuckey contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to modify his sentence based on Amendment 599 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Amendment 599 is a retroactive amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines applicable to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) offenses. See United States v. Hicks, 472 F.3d 1167, 1168 (9th Cir.2007) (explaining background to Amendment 599). Amendment 599 is not applicable to this case as Stuckey was not convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for modification of Stuckey’s sentence.

Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

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