Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario Alberto VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-19
Citations: 487 F. App'x 393
Docket Number: No. 12-10037
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario Alberto VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 487
Pages: 393–393

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario Alberto VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10037.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 19, 2012.
Vincent Q. Kirby, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mario Alberto Valenzuela, Herlong, CA, pro se.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Valenzuela’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mario Alberto Valenzuela appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying his motion to modify the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Valenzuela contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Contrary to Valenzuela's contention, section 3583(e) does not permit the district court to modify a custodial sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). To the extent Valenzuela asserts that his sentence should be shortened under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because the Guidelines range applicable to his underlying drag offense has been lowered, this claim also fails. See United States v. Morales, 590 F.3d 1049, 1051-53 (9th Cir.2010).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.