Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0468-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Estanislao PULIDO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10569
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 01, 2016
    Bobbie J. Montoya, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Laurel J. Montoya, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kathleen Anne Servatius, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Estanislao Pulido, Pro Se
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes, this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Estanislao Pulido 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, and we affirm.

Pulido contends that he is entitled to a sentence induction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009). Pulido’s 120-month sentence reflects the mandatory minimum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). The mandatory minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See United States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2011). Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that it had no authority to reduce Pulido’s sentence below 120 months. See id. at 1148.

Pulido’s claim that the government breached the plea agreement is not cognizable in this proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (section 3582(c)(2) does not permit a “plenary re-sentencing proceeding”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.