N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. W ARREN ANTONIO LEE,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10253

D.C . No. 1:95-c r-00114-FM TG M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t

of Gua m Franc e s M . Ty dingc o-Gate w ood, C hie f Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d

June 12, 2018 ** B e fore : R

AW LINSON, C LIFTON, a n d NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. W arre n Antonio Le e a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs gra nting his c ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w a m otion for a

se nte nc e re duc tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2), a

nd de ny ing his motion for re c onside ration of thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to a m e nd the pre se nte n c e inve s tiga tion re port (“ PSR ” ). 

# F IL ED J UN 15 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. Re vie wing for a buse of disc re tion, se e C hristian v. Matte l, Inc . , 286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th C ir. 2002); Sc hool Dist. N o. 1J , Multnomah C

ty ., Or. v . AC

andS, Inc . , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262–63 (9th C ir. 1993), we a ffirm . Le e ’ s c ounse l m ove d to withdra w the m otion for a

se n te nc e re duc tion a fte r de te rm i ning tha

t Le e wa s ine ligiblefor a re duc t ion. Thedistric t c ourt did not a buse i ts disc re tion in gra

n t ing the m otion be c a

use c ounse l wa s c orre c t— in light of the a m ount of theam ount of drugs involve d in theoffe nse , Am e ndm e n t 782 did not c ha nge Le e ’ s ba se offe nse le ve l or his Guide line s ra nge , m aking Le e ine ligible for a re duc t ion. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2); Unite d State s v . Le n ie a r , 574 F.3d 668, 672–74 (9th C ir. 2009). B e c a use c o unse l ha d

a prope r ba sis to withdra

w the m otion, Le e ’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t his c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive is una va iling. In a

ny e ve nt, the re is no right to c ounse l in se c tion 3582 proc e e dings. Se e Unite d State s v . Tow nse nd , 98 F.3d 510, 512–13 (9th C ir. 1996). Le e a lso fa i ls to show tha t the distric t c ourt a

b use d its disc re t ion in de ny ing his m otion for re c o n side ration of thede nia l of his m otion to a m e nd the PSR

unde r R ule 36 of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C rim ina l Proc e dure . As the c ourt note d, this wa s its fourth de nia l of Le e ’ s m otion a n d Le e provide d no ne w a rgum e n ts tha

t would warran t re c onside ration of thec ourt’ s pre vious de nia ls. Furthe r, the c ha n ge sought 1 7 - 1 0 2 5 3 2by

Le e wa s m ore tha

n a c le ric a l c ha

nge , se e Unite d State

s v . K a y e , 739 F.2d 488, 490 (9th C i r. 1984) (“ R

ule 36 is a

na rrow provision lim

ite d to c orre c t ion of e rrors of no m ore tha

n c le ric a l signific anc e .” ), and the distric t c ourt la c ke d a uthority to c orre c t a l le ge d fa c tua l ina c c ura c ie s in the PSR a fte r Le e ’ s se nte nc e wa s im pose d, se e U nite d State

s v . C atabran , 884 F.2d 1288, 1289 (9th C ir. 1989). Fina lly , Le e ’ s va

rious c la im s c ha l le nging his c onvic tion a nd his a s se rtion that his c rim e s involve d “ c rank” m e tha m phe tam ine rathe r tha

n “ ic e ” are not prope rly be fore the c ourt. Se e Dillon v . Unite d State s , 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010) (any c la im unre lat e d to theSe nte nc ing C om m ission’ s am e ndm e nt to the Guide line s m ay not be ra ise d in a

se c tion 3582(c )(2) proc e e ding). Le e ’ s m otion for c la

rific ation is denie d a s m oot. AFFIRM E D.

1 7 - 1 0 2 5 3 3