Case ID: f-appx_349/html/0142-01.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. Lawrence Duane TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10107.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
    
    Filed Oct. 13, 2009.
    Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., U.S. Attorney, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney Lloyd George Federal Building, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jason F. Carr, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lawrence Duane Taylor appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Taylor contends the district court had authority to lower his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) because his sentence was based on a range that has since been lowered by Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.2009), because Taylor received a mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). See also United States v. Bride, 581 F.3d 888, 889-90 (9th Cir.2009) (holding district court lacked authority to reduce sentence that was not based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.