USA V. LOUIS ROMERO, No. 16-30007 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JAN 25 2017 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-30007 D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00051-BMM v. MEMORANDUM* LOUIS JAMES ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Louis James Romero 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 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). Romero’s request for oral argument is denied. Romero contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). Because Romero was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the district court correctly determined that he is not eligible for a sentence reduction. See id. Contrary to Romero’s argument, the district court adequately explained its determination and it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010) (only if defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction does the district court proceed to the step of considering the section 3553(a) sentencing factors). Romero’s arguments that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender and that the district court violated double jeopardy when it enhanced his sentence based on a prior conviction are not cognizable in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831. AFFIRMED. 2 16-30007
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.
