Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph P. RYNCARZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-23
Citations: 338 F. App'x 696
Docket Number: No. 08-30179
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph P. RYNCARZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 338
Pages: 696–697

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph P. RYNCARZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30179.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009.
Filed July 23, 2009.
Ronald W. Skibbie, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joseph P. Ryncarz appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for modification of sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ryncarz contends that Amendment 709 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, changing the manner in which multiple prior sentences are counted in the computation of criminal history scores, applies retroactively to lower his criminal history score and offense level, thereby entitling him to be resentenced under § 3582(c)(2). The district court correctly determined that Amendment 709 does not apply retroactively. See United States v. Morgan, 376 F.3d 1002, 1010-1011 (9th Cir.2004); see also United States v. Marler, 527 F.3d 874, 878 n. 1 (9th Cir.2008). Even if Amendment 709 were applied retroactively, it would not benefit Ryncarz because it would have no effect on his properly calculated Guidelines range. See United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 513 (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.