United States of America v. Dario Gomez-Juarez, a/k/a Rooster

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4636
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARIO GOMEZ-JUAREZ, a/k/a Rooster,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00274-D-4)
Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: July 7, 2015
Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jenna Turner Blue, BLUE STEPHENS & FELLERS LLP, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dario Gomez-Juarez pleaded guilty without a plea agreement
to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2012); distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012)
(four counts); and eluding examination and inspection by
immigration officers, 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(2) (2012). He received
a within-Guidelines sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment.
Gomez-Juarez’s sole argument on appeal is that his case should
be remanded to the district court for resentencing to apply
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, a retroactive
amendment that reduced the base offense levels in U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 (2013) by two levels. We
affirm.
The district court properly applied the Guidelines in
effect at the time of sentencing, notwithstanding the pending
Guidelines amendment. We have previously held that a motion
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) provides the proper procedure for
defendants such as Gomez-Juarez to seek a reduction in their
sentence based on a retroactive Guidelines amendment. See
United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 640 (4th Cir. 2009);
United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 373 (4th Cir. 2008)
(same).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we follow our usual practice and affirm the
judgment of the district court without prejudice to Gomez-
Juarez’s right to pursue relief under § 3582(c)(2) in the
sentencing court in the first instance. See Brewer, 520 F.3d at
373. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --