The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-10419•United States of America v. Samneuk Bunma
11-10419Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 18, 2012
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
SAMNEUK BUNMA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10419
D.C. No. 1:06-cr-00313-LJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Samneuk Bunma appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
MAY 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
11-10419 2
Bunma contends that he is entitled to be resentenced in light of the Guideline
amendments promulgated by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to the authority
it was granted under the Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”). The result of that directive
was Amendment 750, made retroactive in part by Amendment 759, which
amended the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 for offenses involving crack
cocaine, and accounted for specified aggravating and mitigating factors in certain
drug cases. The amendments to section 2D1.1 have no effect on Bunma’s
applicable Guidelines range because he was convicted of a marijuana offense, and
because the portion of the amendment accounting for mitigating factors was not
made retroactive. See U.S.S.G. app. C, Amendments 750 and 759 (2011). Thus,
Bunma’s “sentence is not ‘based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission,’ as required by § 3582(c)(2).” See United
States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 2009).
Bunma’s remaining claims are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2)
motion.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.