United States of America v. Joe Willie Hooks

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
JOE WILLIE HOOKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10188
D.C. No. 2:96-cr-00246-ROS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Joe Willie Hooks appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 31 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-10188 2
Hooks contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under
Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which changed the drug quantity
table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine. This contention
fails. Amendment 750 did not alter the Guidelines range applicable to the drug
quantity used to determine Hooks’s sentence. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 750.
Because Amendment 750 did not lower Hooks’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range, the district court lacked jurisdiction to reduce his sentence. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2); United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 2009).
In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Hooks’s contention that the
district court abused its discretion by failing to state reasons for denying his
motion.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --