United States of America v. Mario Alberto Valenzuela

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). Accordingly, Valenzuela’s
request for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARIO ALBERTO VALENZUELA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10037
D.C. No. 2:03-cr-00882-SMM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mario Alberto Valenzuela appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying his motion to
modify the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
FILED
NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-10037 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Valenzuela contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to
reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Contrary to Valenzuela’s
contention, section 3583(e) does not permit the district court to modify a custodial
sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). To the extent Valenzuela asserts that his
sentence should be shortened under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because the Guidelines
range applicable to his underlying drug offense has been lowered, this claim also
fails. See United States v. Morales, 590 F.3d 1049, 1051-53 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --