NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-16224

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 1:17-cv-00252-DAD

1:96-cr-05272-DAD-1 v. RONALD CASTANON, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

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).

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 19-16224