UNITED STATES v. DIMMER (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Derneval Rodnell Dimmer 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. We review de novo the district court's determination that Dimmer was ineligible for a reduction, see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

Dimmer contends that the district court erred by treating his motion as a motion for reconsideration, rather than a new § 3582(c)(2) motion. He also argues that the district court failed to follow the two-step procedure set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010), or to make supplemental drug findings under United States v. Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2017).

Dimmer's arguments are unavailing. First, the district court did not treat Dimmer's motion solely as a motion for reconsideration. While the district court observed that any request for reconsideration would be untimely, it also reviewed the merits of Dimmer's claims and correctly observed that it had previously rejected those precise arguments in a prior order. It was not required to do more under Dillon or otherwise. Moreover, Mercado-Moreno has no bearing on this case. Here, unlike in that case, there is no dispute that the drug quantity to which Dimmer admitted in his plea agreement corresponded to a lower base offense level than the one used at sentencing. However, as this court recently held, even using that lower base offense level, Dimmer is not entitled to relief because his sentence is below the amended Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A); United States v. Dimmer, 786 Fed. App'x 114, 115 (9th Cir. 2019).

Dimmer's motion for ruling in his favor is denied.

AFFIRMED.