Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0217-01.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. Travis WAIPA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10392
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 22, 2016
    Thomas C. Muehleck, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Travis Waipa, Mendota, CA, Pro Se.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Travis Waipa 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. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011), we affirm.

Waipa contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. In the alternative, he argues that, even if Amendment 782 does not authorize a reduction in his sentence, the district court should have resentenced him to 108 months, the bottom of his Guidelines range. These claims fail. Waipa’s 120-month sentence reflects the mandatory minimum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). The mandatory minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See Sykes, 658 F.3d at 1147-48. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that it had no authority to reduce Waipa’s sentence below 120 months. See id. at 1148.

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