United States v. Leonal Rivera

Good Law
653 F. App'x 496
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 22, 201615-10373California270 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Leonel Rivera appeals 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.

Rivera contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009), we agree with the district court that because Rivera was sentenced as a career offender, it lacked authority to reduce his sentence. See id. at 731-32 .

Rivera contends, however, that had the district court properly applied Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), at his original sentencing hearing, it would have been required to use the base offense level stated in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, rather than U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, thereby entitling him to the benefit of the changes to section 2D1.1, despite his career offender status. Even accepting all of this as true, Rivera cannot prevail. Amendment 782 made no changes to the base offense level under section 2D1.1 for the drug quantity involved in Rivera’s offense. See U.S.S.G. 2Dl.l(c)(3) (2015). Rivera’s claim…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.