Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0681-01.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. PENG XIANG LI, a.k.a. Sgt. Stephen, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10503
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 1, 2016
    David Countryman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, William Frentzen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Derek Owens, J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Peng Xiang Li, Post, TX, Pro Se.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Peng Xiang Li 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.

Li contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction 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). Li is not entitled to a sentence reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Rather, his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vii). Accordingly, the district court properly denied relief. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095.

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