Case ID: f-appx_419/html/0733-01.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. Ricardo RUIZ, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-50169.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 8, 2011.
    Sara J. O’Connell, Assistant U.S., U.S. Department of Justice, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ricardo Ruiz, 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

Ricardo Ruiz appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence and, in the alternative, construing his motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying the same. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

To the extent that Ruiz challenges the district court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion, his appeal lacks merit because he fails to 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); see also United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

To the extent that Ruiz appeals from the district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion, we construe his notice of appeal as a request for a certificate of appealability on the issues in his opening brief. So construed, the request is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per cu-riam).

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