Case ID: f-appx_637/html/0430-01.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. Gerardo MIRANDA-MENDOZA, a.k,a. Rafael Ibanez-Naranjo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30090.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed Feb. 29, 2016.
    Joseph Hilary Harrington, Assistant U.S., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, Jane Kirk, Assistant U.S., USYA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gerardo Mirandar-Mendoza, Folkston, GA, pro se.
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gerardo Mirandar-Mendoza appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Miranda-Mendoza contends that the district court erred by denying him a sentence reduction under Amendments 782 and 788 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir.2009). Contrary to Miranda-Mendoza’s contention, his 120-month sentence was not based on the Guidelines; rather, it was the lowest sentence that the court could impose by statute. See 21 U.S.C, § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). Because Miranda-Mendoza was sentenced based on the statutory mandatory minimum, the district court correctly concluded that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A); Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095-96.

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