Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis LUNA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-05
Citations: 333 F. App'x 314
Docket Number: No. 08-30471
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Luis LUNA-GARCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 314–314

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Luis LUNA-GARCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-30471.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Oct. 5, 2009.
Joseph E. Thaggard, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Jose Luis Luna Garcia, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Luis Luna-Garcia appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for reduction or review of sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Luna-Garcia contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for a reduction of sentence and a review of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. The district court properly concluded that it lacked authority to resen-tence him. See United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 513 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
To the extent that Luna-Garcia seeks relief pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, this claim was also properly denied by the district court. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 33; see also United States v. McKinney, 952 F.2d 333, 336 (9th Cir.1991).
To the extent that Luna-Garcia challenges the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, we construe this as a motion to broaden the certifícate of appealability, and deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); 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.