United States of America v. Jaime Diaz-Aspina

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAIME DIAZ-ASPINA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50044
D.C. No. 2:91-cr-00827-WDK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
William D. Keller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
OCT 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-50044 2
in 1996, reducing his sentence from 310 months to 293 months, Diaz-Aspina now
contends, pursuant to United States v. Booker, 534 U.S. 220 (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, 130 S.Ct.
2683, 2692-93 (2010) (concluding that neither the constitutional nor the remedial
aspects of Booker apply to a resentencing proceeding under § 3582(c)(2)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --