Case ID: f-appx_365/html/0751-01.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. Andre Patrick HOLLAND, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50434.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 6, 2009.
    Filed Nov. 17, 2009.
    
      Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Lizabeth A. Rhodes, Esquire, Daniel Benjamin Lev-in, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Benjamin Lee Coleman, Coleman & Bal-ogh, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SEDWICK, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable John W. Sedwick, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court did not err in denying Holland’s request to apply the “safety valve” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) on a motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), because modification of a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) “does not amount to a new sentencing for purposes of the safety valve statute.” United States v. Stockdale, 129 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir. 1997). Moreover, Sentencing Commission policy statements prevent use of § 3553(f) in § 3582(c) proceedings. See U.S.S.G. §§ lB1.10(a)(3), 1B1.10(b)(1). “[CJonsis-tency with the policy statements is a mandatory condition” under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Sipai, 582 F.3d 994, 995 (9th Cir.2009).

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