USA V. JAIME MORENO, No. 17-30095 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 16 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-30095 D.C. No. 1:99-cr-00048-SPW v. MEMORANDUM* JAIME MORENO, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Jaime Moreno appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), 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). In the district court, Moreno moved for a sentence reduction in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The district court correctly concluded that this claim does not provide a basis for relief under section 3582(c)(2). See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824-26 (2010) (section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resentencing proceeding, but rather authorizes the district court to modify a sentence in the “limited circumstance[]” where a defendant who was sentenced based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered). On appeal, Moreno raises several new arguments, including claims challenging his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the effectiveness of his trial counsel, and the length of his sentence. These claims are not properly before us, see United States v. Antonakeas, 255 F.3d 714, 721 (9th Cir. 2001), and are outside the scope of a section 3582(c)(2) motion, see Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831. To the extent Moreno seeks to recall the mandate in one of his previous appeals, that request may not be raised in this appeal. AFFIRMED. 2 17-30095
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.
