Case ID: f-appx_637/html/0244-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Moises Pulido JAUREGUI, also known as Manuel Rivera De La Paz, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-2998.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 5, 2016.
    Filed: Feb. 11, 2016.
    Andrew Dunne, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Moisés Pulido Jauregui, Philipsburg, PA, pro se.
    Katherine M. Menendez, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Moisés Pulido Jauregui appeals after the District Court denied him a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We conclude that the court did not err in denying the reduction because it could not reduce Jauregui’s sentence below his statutory minimum sentence. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (setting out a 10-year statutory mandatory minimum sentence for certain offenses); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A) (explaining that a § 3582(c)(2) reduction is not authorized if “the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of ... a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment”); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (stating that § 3582(c) authorizes a district court to reduce a sentence by applying the amended Guidelines range as if it were in effect at the time of the original sentencing, leaving all other Guidelines determinations unaffected); United States v. Long, 757 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir.2014) (standards of review), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 991, 190 L.Ed.2d 869 (2015); United States v. Peters, 524 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (holding that § 3582(c)(2) did not authorize a modification because the defendant had received a statutory mandatory minimum sentence and the court could not address any alleged error from the original sentencing), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 922, 129 S.Ct. 290, 172 L.Ed.2d 212 (2008).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 
      
      . The Honorable Patrick J. Schütz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.