USA V. JORGE ROCA-SUAREZ, No. 13-50393 (9th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAY 22 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-50393 D.C. No. 2:90-cr-00877-SVW v. MEMORANDUM* JORGE ROCA-SUAREZ, a.k.a. George Roca, a.k.a. Jorge Roca, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Jorge Roca-Suarez appeals pro se from the district court s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 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). Roca-Suarez contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 591 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Roca-Suarez s contention, Amendment 591 did not alter the Guidelines section applicable to his offense of conviction or the calculation of his Guidelines range under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 591 (Supp. 2003); see also United States v. McEnry, 659 F.3d 893, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing changes made by Amendment 591). Because Amendment 591 did not lower Roca-Suarez s Guidelines range, the district court lacked authority to reduce his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 674. Roca-Suarez also contends that the district court erred by failing to explain the reasons for its denial of his motion. Because the court had no authority to modify Roca-Suarez s sentence, however, its summary denial was not improper. AFFIRMED. 2 13-50393

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.