Case ID: f-appx_548/html/0454-01.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. Eladio Soto BOUZA, a.k.a. Fantoma, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50238.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 9, 2013.
    Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Eladio Soto Bouza, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eladio Soto Bouza appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the district court had authority to modify a defendant’s sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir.2012), and we affirm.

Bouza contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction because the government failed to comply with the requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851 at his original sentencing. This contention does not support relief under section 3582(c)(2). See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (section 3582(c)(2) authorizes “only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding”). Bouza is not entitled to relief under section 3582(c)(2) because he was sentenced in 1991 to a life term, the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (1991), and not based on a Guidelines range that was subsequently lowered. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also United States v. Augustine, 712 F.3d 1290, 1295 (9th Cir.2013) (the Fair Sentencing Act’s new mandatory minimums do not apply to defendants who were sentenced before the Act’s effective date).

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