USA V. JOE HOOKS, No. 12-10188 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 31 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-10188 D.C. No. 2:96-cr-00246-ROS v. MEMORANDUM * JOE WILLIE HOOKS, Defendant - Appellant. 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. * 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). 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 12-10188