United States of America v. Louis James Romero

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LOUIS JAMES ROMERO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30007
D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00051-BMM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Louis James Romero 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.
FILED
JAN 25 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Romero’s request for oral
argument is denied.

-- 1 of 2 --

Romero contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a
district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See
United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). Because Romero was
sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the district court correctly
determined that he is not eligible for a sentence reduction. See id.
Contrary to Romero’s argument, the district court adequately explained its
determination and it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010) (only if defendant is
eligible for a sentence reduction does the district court proceed to the step of
considering the section 3553(a) sentencing factors). Romero’s arguments that he
should not have been sentenced as a career offender and that the district court
violated double jeopardy when it enhanced his sentence based on a prior conviction
are not cognizable in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831.
AFFIRMED.
16-30007 2

-- 2 of 2 --