United States of America v. Moises Gomez, a.k.a. Santiago

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MOISES GOMEZ, a.k.a. Santiago,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-10155
D.C. No. 1:95-cr-00476-HG-7
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Moises Gomez appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his second
motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the district court
had authority to reduce a defendant’s sentence under section 3582, see United
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-10155
States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
Gomez contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court correctly found
that Gomez is ineligible for a reduction because, given the drug quantity
attributable to Gomez, Amendment 782 did not have the effect of lowering the
guideline range applicable to him. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); Leniear, 574
F.3d at 673-74.
Gomez also argues that he is entitled to a reduction due to his conditions of
confinement and the district court’s alleged errors in imposing his original
sentence. We do not reach these arguments because they are outside the scope of a
section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-826,
831 (2010).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --