Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Willie HOOKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-31
Citations: 503 F. App'x 518
Docket Number: No. 12-10188
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Willie HOOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 503
Pages: 518–519

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Willie HOOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10188.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Dec. 31, 2012.
Howard David Sukenic, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joe Willie Hooks, White Deer, PA, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Joe Willie Hooks appeals from the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 8582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hooks contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which changed the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine. This contention fails. Amendment 750 did not alter the Guidelines range applicable to the drug quantity used to determine Hooks's sentence. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 750. Because Amendment 750 did not lower Hooks's advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, the district court lacked jurisdiction to reduce his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 674 (9th Cir.2009).
In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Hooks's contention that the district court abused its discretion by failing to state reasons for denying his motion.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.