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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 18-35936
D.C. Nos. 4:16-cv-00111-BMM
4:12-cr-00051-BMM-3
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Louis James Romero appeals from the district court’s order denying his
motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Fultz, 923 F.3d 1192,
1194 (9th Cir. 2019), we affirm.
* 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).
FILED
OCT 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-35936
Romero argues that, because of subsequent changes in Washington and
California criminal law regarding the possession of marijuana, he should be
resentenced without being designated as a career offender under the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines. However, Romero provided no documentation to establish
that his criminal record has, in fact, been affected by either state’s laws. Further,
even if Romero had received Washington and/or California post-conviction relief,
he would not be entitled to resentencing. At the time of Romero’s federal offense,
he had sustained two prior controlled substance offenses, which qualified him as a
career offender. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(c) (2011). Any change in the status of
those prior offenses under state law cannot affect that determination. See United
States v. Yepez, 704 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“State
courts cannot be given the authority to change a defendant’s federal sentence by
issuing a ruling that alters history and the underlying facts.”); see also United
States v. Diaz, 838 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 839 (2017)
(state order that reclassified a defendant’s felony conviction as a misdemeanor did
not change the historical fact that defendant had been convicted of a felony for
purposes of a federal statutory sentencing enhancement).
We treat appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-
1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-35936
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --