United States of America v. Ronald Castanon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RONALD CASTANON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-16224
D.C. Nos. 1:17-cv-00252-DAD
1:96-cr-05272-DAD-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Ronald Castanon appeals from the district court’s order
denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d
562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.
* 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).
FILED
JAN 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-16224
Castanon contends that the district court erred by denying his § 2255 motion
as untimely. He asserts that his motion is timely because he filed it within one year
of the Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015).
However, Castanon’s argument that Johnson applies to the mandatory career
offender Guideline under which he was sentenced is foreclosed. See United States
v. Blackstone, 903 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Johnson did not recognize a
new right applicable to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines on collateral
review.”). Contrary to Castanon’s argument, our decision in Blackstone is not
“clearly irreconcilable” with United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). See
Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Accordingly, the
district court properly concluded that § 2255(f)(3) does not apply and Castanon’s
motion is untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1).
We treat Castanon’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-
1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --