Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Lamar JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-13
Citations: 475 F. App'x 236
Docket Number: No. 11-30161
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Lamar JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 236–237

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Lamar JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-30161.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
Filed Aug. 13, 2012.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Steven To-shio Masada, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joseph Lamar Johnson, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joseph Lamar Johnson appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his 30-month sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Johnson contends that the district court should have reduced his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) because his counsel ren dered ineffective assistance by allowing him to be sentenced before the effective date of Amendment 742 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which eliminated the "recency points" provision of former U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(e). The record reflects that no recency points under former section 4Al.l(e) were included in Johnson's criminal history calculation. Accordingly, even if a claim of ineffective assistance could support a reduction in sentence, Johnson has not established that he is entitled to relief under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson's motion. See United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 512-13 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.