Court Opinion

ID: 2675466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-05-22 21:00:32.816922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:23.691564
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAY 22 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-50393

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:90-cr-00877-SVW

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JORGE ROCA-SUAREZ, a.k.a. George
Roca, a.k.a. Jorge Roca,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                    Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted May 13, 2014**

Before:        CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

       Jorge Roca-Suarez appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Roca-Suarez contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under

Amendment 591 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a

district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See

United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to

Roca-Suarez’s contention, Amendment 591 did not alter the Guidelines section

applicable to his offense of conviction or the calculation of his Guidelines range

under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 591 (Supp. 2003); see also

United States v. McEnry, 659 F.3d 893, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing changes

made by Amendment 591). Because Amendment 591 did not lower Roca-Suarez’s

Guidelines range, the district court lacked authority to reduce his sentence. See 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 674.

      Roca-Suarez also contends that the district court erred by failing to explain

the reasons for its denial of his motion. Because the court had no authority to

modify Roca-Suarez’s sentence, however, its summary denial was not improper.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    13-50393