USA V. GUILLERMO BARRETO-ORTIZ, No. 15-50452 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-50452 D.C. No. 3:07-cr-02882-BEN MEMORANDUM* GUILLERMO BARRETO-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 16, 2016** Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Guillermo Barreto-Ortiz appeals 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. The government seeks the dismissal of this appeal as untimely. Because * 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). Barreto-Ortiz is a pro se prisoner, his notice of appeal (“NOA”) is deemed filed when it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). The record reflects, and the government does not dispute, that Barreto-Ortiz’s NOA was postmarked on October 15, 2015. Barreto-Ortiz’s NOA must, therefore, have been delivered to prison officials no later than that date. Because judgment was entered on October 1, 2015, his NOA was thus timely filed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i), (c)(1). Barreto-Ortiz contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court acted within its discretion when it denied Barreto-Ortiz a sentence reduction based on its determination that he posed a threat to the public in light of the nature of the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010). AFFIRMED. 2 15-50452

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.