Case Name: UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Julio CONEO-GUERRERO, Defendant, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-03
Citations: 86 F. App'x 438
Docket Number: No. 03-1563
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Julio CONEO-GUERRERO, Defendant, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 86
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Julio CONEO-GUERRERO, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 03-1563.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Feb. 3, 2004.
Julio Coneo-Guerrero on brief pro se.
Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, and Sonia I. Torres-Pabon, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Criminal Division, on brief for appellee.
Before LYNCH, LIPEZ and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm the decision below.
The appellant could benefit from a retroactive application of Amendment 640 only if the amendment were listed as retroactive under U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c), or it served merely to clarify the existing guideline. United States v. Prezioso, 989 F.2d 52 (1st Cir.1993). The amendment satisfies neither condition. It is not listed under U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c), and it substantively changed the guideline by creating an entirely new cap on offense level. See United States v. Diaz-Cardenas, 351 F.3d 404 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Garcia, 339 F.3d 116 (2nd Cir.2003).
Affirmed. Loe. R. 27(c).