NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-30106
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00056-TMB-7
v.
DERNEVAL RODNELL DIMMER, AKA MEMORANDUM*
Big Cuz, AKA Pedro Dimmer, AKA Jabba,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
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).
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 (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.
2 19-30106