Case ID: f-appx_542/html/0565-01.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. Jay KENT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10507.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 7, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 10, 2013.
    Merry Jean Chan, Esquire, Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Daniel Blank, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: D.W. NELSON, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jay Kent appeals the denial of his motion for reduction in sentence brought under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.

Assuming, without deciding, that Kent’s motion for reduction in sentence did not violate his plea agreement, our holding in United States v. Augustine, 712 F.3d 1290 (9th Cir.2013), forecloses Kent’s arguments that the Fair Sentencing Act’s mandatory mínimums should apply retroactively to defendants sentenced before the Act was enacted. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kent’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.

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