22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T40f,MEMORANDUM ** Jaime Diaz-Aspina appeals from the district court’s order denying his second 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) motion to modify his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Following the district court’s grant of his first motion to modify his sentence in 1996, reducing his sentence from 310 months to 293 months, Diaz-Aspina now contends, pursuant to United States v. Boolcer, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and United States v. Hicks, 472 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir.2006), that he is entitled to a full resentencing proceeding so that the district court may consider a further sentence reduction. This contention is foreclosed. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692-93 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (concluding that neither the constitutional nor the remedial aspects of Booker apply to a resentencing proceeding under § 3582(c)(2)). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T42a,

MEMORANDUM **

Jaime Diaz-Aspina appeals from the district court’s order denying his second 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) motion to modify his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Following the district court’s grant of his first motion to modify his sentence in 1996, reducing his sentence from 310 months to 293 months, Diaz-Aspina now contends, pursuant to United States v. Boolcer, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and United States v. Hicks, 472 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir.2006), that he is entitled to a full resentencing proceeding so that the district court may consider a further sentence reduction. This contention is foreclosed. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692-93 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (concluding that neither the constitutional nor the remedial aspects of Booker apply to a resentencing proceeding under § 3582(c)(2)).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.