United States v. Jose Arciniega
This text of 358 F. App'x 991 (United States v. Jose Arciniega) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Jose Manuel Arciniega appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Arciniega contends that the district court erred when it denied his 18 U.S.C. § 8582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 709 to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(l)(A). Because that Amendment is not referenced by U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(e), Arciniega is not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a) (2008); United States v. Cueto, 9 F.3d 1438, 1440-41 (9th Cir.1993).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
358 F. App'x 991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jose-arciniega-ca9-2009.