United States v. Juan Valera ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-30136
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:99-CR-00036-HRH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JUAN FRANCISCO VALERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
H. Russel Holland, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Juan Francisco Valera appeals from the 262-month sentence imposed
following the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for
a reduced sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Valera contends that the district court erred at the section 3582(c)(2)
*
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).
proceeding by: (1) concluding that the Sentencing Commission has the authority to
limit the district court’s ability to look at the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when
imposing a modified sentence; (2) failing to address adequately the 100:1
crack/powder disparity; and (3) treating the Guidelines as mandatory. These
contentions are foreclosed by Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2692-93
(2010) (section 3582(c)(2) proceedings do not implicate the Sixth Amendment
interests identified in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)).
Valera also contends the policy statement articulated in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 is
invalid because it was promulgated in violation of procedural requirements. This
contention is foreclosed by United States v. Fox, 631 F.3d 1128, 1131-33 (9th Cir.
2011).
We deny the government’s March 22, 2011, motion for summary affirmance
as moot.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-30136