Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gonzalo GOMEZ-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-28
Citations: 416 F. App'x 656
Docket Number: No. 10-10249
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gonzalo GOMEZ-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 416
Pages: 656–656

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gonzalo GOMEZ-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10249.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 28, 2011.
Michael Lee, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gonzalo Gomez-Morales, Winton, NC, pro se.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, 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
Gonzalo Gomez-Morales 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gomez contends that Amendment 591 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, clarifying the application of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2, authorizes the district court to resentenee him. The record reflects that Gomez's base offense level was calculated under § 2Dl.l(c)(l), rather than § 2D1.2; therefore Amendment 591 does not apply to him. Accordingly, Gomez cannot demonstrate that his sentence is based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, as required by § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir.2009).
Gomez also contends that he is entitled to relief under Amendment 591 because the drug quantity used to calculate his base offense level was determined by the sentencing court, rather than a jury. This argument is foreclosed. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) do not implicate the Sixth Amendment right to have essential facts found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.