Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando CLAVERIA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-20
Citations: 479 F. App'x 796
Docket Number: No. 12-10052
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando CLAVERIA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 796–797

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando CLAVERIA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10052.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 20, 2012.
Daniel R. Schiess, Assistant U.S., Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brenda Weksler, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. 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
Fernando Claveria-Martinez appeals from the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Claveria-Martinez contends that the district court committed legal error because it did not understand the rationale behind the Fair Sentencing Act and did not follow the procedures set forth in section 3582(c)(2). The record reflects that the district court did not commit legal error and appropriately exercised its discretion to deny Claveria-Martinez's motion. See United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.2010).
To the extent that Claveria-Martinez renews the contention made in his last appeal that the district court erred in departing upward in criminal history category at his original sentencing, we again conclude that his argument is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2694, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.