Not for Publication in West’s Federal Reporter -
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 02-2616
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
JESUS M. QUIÑONES-RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. José Antonio Fusté, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Lipez and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Jesus M. Quiñones-Rodriguez on brief pro se.
H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, Sonia I. Torres-Pabón,
Assistant United States Attorney, and Nelson Pérez-Sosa, Assistant
United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
June 17, 2003
Per Curiam. Appellant Jesus Quiñones-Rodriguez appeals
a district court order that summarily denied his motion for
sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)(2001) for lack of
jurisdiction. Appellant is serving a 336-month incarcerative
sentence for two armed carjackings in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2119(1)(1992). See United States v. Quiñones-Rodriguez, 26 F.3d
213, 220 (1st Cir. 1994)(affirming sentence after a limited remand
for explanation of upward departure); United States v. Quiñones-
Rodriguez, 855 F. Supp. 523 (D.P.R. 1994)(explaining upward
departure). Appellant's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion alleged that
appellant was entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 599
to the United States Sentencing Guidelines and U.S.S.G. §
1B1.10(c)(Nov. 2001) (identifying Amendment 599 as retroactive).
Applying plenary review to the district court's
interpretation of Amendment 599, see United States v. Hickey, 280
F.3d 65, 67 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 212 (2002), we
conclude that the order denying appellant sentencing relief was
patently correct. The plain language of Amendment 599 shows that
it does not apply to appellant because appellant was not convicted
of a weapons offense over and above armed carjacking.1
1
United States v. Clements, No. 01-15623, (11th Cir. June 7,
2002), and United States v. Joseph, No. 01-16883 (11th Cir. July 18,
2002), are distinguishable from this case because those defendants
were convicted of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) offenses in addition to
robbery offenses. Appellant stands convicted of only the two armed
carjackings. Because he was neither prosecuted nor convicted of
concomitant weapons offenses, appellant cannot benefit from
-2-
Accordingly, the order denying appellant's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
motion is affirmed. See Loc. R. 27(c).
Amendment 599.
-3-