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. HEC TOR R ODR IGUEZ-R

AM IR EZ, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-50307

D.C . No. 2:99-c r-01274-PA-19
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R ona ld S.W . Le w , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 3, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a n d KENNELLY, ** Distric t Judge
. He c tor R odrigue z -R am ire z a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion for a s e nte nc e re duc tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2). W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED DEC 14 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 Honora

ble M atthe w F. Ke nne lly , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion.The distric t c ourt did not err in c a lc u lating R odrigue z -R am i re z ’ s am e nde d

guide l ine s ra

nge . C onsiste nt with § 1B 1.10(b)(1) of the U.S. Se nte nc ing Guide line s, the c ourt c orre c tly substitute d the ne w ba se offe nse le ve l of 32 (whic h
wa s a pplic a ble to R o drigue z -R am ire z ’ s offe n se unde r the am e nde d § 2D1.1(c ) of the g uide line s) in pla c e of the prior ba se offe nse le ve l of 38, a nd the n a pplie d the grouping rule s unde r §§ 3D1.3 a nd 3D1.4 to a

rrive at a c om bine d a djuste d offe nse le ve l of 34. Se e Unite d State s v . W ate rs , 648 F.3d 1114, 1117–18 (9th C ir. 2011);
se e a lso Unite d State

s v . Le nie ar , 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th C ir. 2009). Thec ourt the n c orre c tly a pplie d the thre e le ve l a djustm e nt for a c c e pta nc e of re sponsibility

to
arrive at a tota l offe nse le ve l of 31, re sulting in a guide l ine s ra nge of 151 to 188
m onths, given R odrigue z -R am ire z ’ s c rim i na l history c ate g ory . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in we ighing thefa c tors liste d in 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) to c onc lude tha t a se nte nc ing re duc tion wa s not wa rrante d. Se e Unite d State

s v . Me rc ado-More n o , 869 F.3d 942, 949 (9th C ir. 2017). It
a de quate ly

a ddre sse d R o drigue z -R am ire z ’ s nonfrivolous a rgum e nts for a

re duc e d
se nte nc e unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a )(1). The c ourt e xpla i ne d its re a sons for de te rm i ning tha

t— c ontra ry to R odrigue z -R am ire z ’ s c onte ntions—“ the nature and
c irc um s ta nc e s of the offe n se and the history and c ha ra c te ristic s of the de fe nda nt,” 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a)(1), did not we i gh in fa vor of a lowe r se nte nc e . Am ong othe r 2things, the

c ourt note d tha

t R odrigue z -R am ire z pa

rtic ipate d in a

viole nt c rim ina l
e nte rprise , e n ga g e d in a c ts of viole nc e , wa s pa rt of a c o nspira c y to m

urde r a fe llow ga ng m e m be r, and ha d a

prior fe lony

c onvic tion for m ansla

ughte r. Nor did the distric t c o urt a

buse its disc re tion in re

je c ting R odrigue z -R am ire z ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t de ny ing him

a se nte nc e re duc tion would c re at e unwa rrante d se nte nc ing dispa

ritie s with his c ode fe nda

nts, be c a u se the y we re not simila

rly situa te d to R odrigue z R am i re z . Fina l l y , the distric t c o urt’ s a sse ssm e nt tha t the se nte nc e of 235 m o nths
wa s “ not a

substa ntia l de pa rture ” from

the am e nde d guide line s range of 151 to 188
m onths wa s not a

finding of fa c t, le t a lone a c le arly e rrone ous finding of fa c t. AFFIRM E D
.

3