Case ID: f-appx_678/html/0602-01.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. Oswaldo ZUNIGA-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Oswaldo Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30028
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 27, 2017
    Timothy John Racicot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USMI—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Oswaldo Zuniga-Sanchez, Pro Se
    
      Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oswaldo Zuniga-Sanchez appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting in part Zuniga-Sanchez’s 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.

The district court reduced Zuniga-San-chez’s sentence to 120 months, which reflects the mandatory minimum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Zuniga-Sanchez contends that he is entitled to a further reduction. We review de novo a district court’s refusal to depart below the mandatory minimum. See United States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). Because the mandatory minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings, the distinct court correctly concluded that it could not reduce Zuniga-Sanchez’s sentence any further than it did. See Sykes, 658 F.3d at 1148.

Zuniga-Sanchez’s challenge to the district court’s denial of safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) is not cognizable in this proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (only aspects of the sentence affected by the amendment may be raised in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings).

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