UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ RAMIREZ (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Hector Rodriguez-Ramirez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We affirm.

The district court did not err in calculating Rodriguez-Ramirez’s amended guidelines range. Consistent with § 1B1.10(b)(1) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the court correctly substituted the new base offense level of 32 (which was applicable to Rodriguez-Ramirez’s offense under the amended § 2D1.1(c) of the guidelines) in place of the prior base offense level of 38, and then applied the grouping rules under §§ 3D1.3 and 3D1.4 to arrive at a combined adjusted offense level of 34. See United States v. Waters, 648 F.3d 1114, 1117–18 (9th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 2009). The court then correctly applied the three level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility to arrive at a total offense level of 31, resulting in a guidelines range of 151 to 188 months, given Rodriguez-Ramirez’s criminal history category.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to conclude that a sentencing reduction was not warranted. See United States v. Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d 942, 949 (9th Cir. 2017). It adequately addressed Rodriguez-Ramirez’s nonfrivolous arguments for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). The court explained its reasons for determining that—contrary to Rodriguez-Ramirez’s contentions—“the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), did not weigh in favor of a lower sentence. Among other things, the court noted that Rodriguez-Ramirez participated in a violent criminal enterprise, engaged in acts of violence, was part of a conspiracy to murder a fellow gang member, and had a prior felony conviction for manslaughter. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in rejecting Rodriguez-Ramirez’s argument that denying him a sentence reduction would create unwarranted sentencing disparities with his codefendants, because they were not similarly situated to Rodriguez-Ramirez. Finally, the district court’s assessment that the sentence of 235 months was “not a substantial departure” from the amended guidelines range of 151 to 188 months was not a finding of fact, let alone a clearly erroneous finding of fact. AFFIRMED.