Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-08
Citations: 419 F. App'x 733
Docket Number: No. 10-50169
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ricardo RUIZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 419
Pages: 733–734

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ricardo RUIZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-50169.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 8, 2011.
Sara J. O’Connell, Assistant U.S., U.S. Department of Justice, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ricardo Ruiz, 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
Ricardo Ruiz appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence and, in the alternative, construing his motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying the same. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
To the extent that Ruiz challenges the district court's denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion, his appeal lacks merit because he fails to 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); see also United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
To the extent that Ruiz appeals from the district court's denial of a § 2255 motion, we construe his notice of appeal as a request for a certificate of appealability on the issues in his opening brief. So construed, the request is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per cu-riam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.