United States of America v. Luciano Ramirez-Salazar

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUCIANO RAMIREZ-SALAZAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-16786
D.C. Nos. 2:11-cv-03206-JAM-
GGH
2:97-cr-00591-JAM-
GGH-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 18, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEZ, District
Judge.**
The district court dismissed Luciano Ramirez-Salazar’s most recent 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion as second or successive. Ramirez-Salazar concedes that his
motion contains at most one claim that is not so barred—a claim of ineffective
FILED
JAN 07 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

Page 2 of 2
assistance of counsel during his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction
proceeding.
We need not decide whether that claim is also second or successive, because
the claim is without merit in any event. Ramirez-Salazar did not have a
constitutional right to counsel during his § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. United States v.
Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 512–13 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Ramirez-Salazar
argues that our holding in Townsend is no longer good law, but the intervening
Supreme Court decisions he cites are not “clearly irreconcilable” with Townsend,
see Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). With “no
constitutional right to counsel, [Ramirez-Salazar] could not be deprived of the
effective assistance of counsel.” Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586, 587–88
(1982) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --