Case ID: f-appx_487/html/0393-01.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. Mario Alberto VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10037.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 19, 2012.
    Vincent Q. Kirby, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mario Alberto Valenzuela, Herlong, CA, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Valenzuela’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Alberto Valenzuela appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying his motion to modify the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Valenzuela contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Contrary to Valenzuela’s contention, section 3583(e) does not permit the district court to modify a custodial sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). To the extent Valenzuela asserts that his sentence should be shortened under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because the Guidelines range applicable to his underlying drag offense has been lowered, this claim also fails. See United States v. Morales, 590 F.3d 1049, 1051-53 (9th Cir.2010).

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