T h e pan el u nani m o usl y c on cl u des t h i s c as e i s s u i t abl e f or de ci s i on * w itho u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. See Fed

. R
. A p p . P
. 34 (a)( 2 ).

F OR P UB LIC AT ION 

### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ,

Plaintif f-Appellee , v. O R L ANDO C L EME NT , AKA Rab, AK A Se a l C, Defendant-

Appellant

. No. 12-50189

D.C. No. 2:05-cr- 00814- GAF -3
OPI NI ON Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he Ce ntr a l D istri c t of

Ca lif or nia Gar y A. Fe ess, District J udg e, Presiding Submit ted J uly

8, 2013 * Filed July 22, 2013 Be fore : Alex Koz inski, Chi ef Judge , Wil liam C. Canby , J r. a nd Ric ha rd C. T a llm an, Cir c uit

Judg e s. Per Curiam OpinionU NI TED S T A T ES V . C L EME NT 2

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es no part o f the o pi ni on of

t he cour t
. I t ha s ** b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. SUMMAR

Y **
Crim inal L aw Summari ly

a ff ir min ga c ri min a l judgme nt, the pa ne l he ld th atth e d e f

e n d an t ’ s c l a i m s ar e f

o r e c l o s e d b y United States v. Augustine , 712 F.3d 1290 ( 9th Cir. 2013), which he ld that mand ator y min imums i n th e F a ir

Se nte nc ingAc t of

20 10 did no t a pp ly in 1 8 U .S. C. § 35 82 (c )( 2) pr oc e e din g s to defe ndants sentenc ed bef ore the Act wa s enac ted. The pa n el d enied the defe ndant’s petition for initial hear ing e n banc w ithout prejudice to re newa l as a petition for rehe aringen banc

. The pa nel noted that since United States v. Augustine was de cided, a n inter-c ircuit spit has emerg ed.
CO UN SEL Davina T . Chen, Deputy Fe dera l Publi c De fende r, F eder al Public Defe nder’ s Offic e, L os Ang eles, California , for De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. J ean- Claude Andre and Curtis A. Kin, A ssistant United St ates Attor ne y s, Of fi c e of the Un ite d St ate s A tto rn e y , L os An g e le s, California, for

Plaintiff-Appellee

.U NI TED S T A T ES V . C L EME NT 3 OP IN ION PER CU RIAM : A re view of the rec ord indicate s that the questions raised in this appeal ar e so i n s ub s t an tial as not to require further argument. See U

nited Stat es v. H

ooton , 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1 9 8 2 ) (pe r cur iam) (statingstandard) . Appellant’s c l a i m s ar e f

o r e c l o s e d b y United States v. Augustine , 712 F.3d 1290 (9th Ci r. 2013). Ac cording ly , appellee ’s motion for summary aff irmance is gr anted. Appellant’s pe tition for initi al hea ringen ba n c i s denied without p r e

ju d ic e to r e n e w a l a s a p e ti ti o n f o r r e h e ar in gen banc. I n United States v. Augustine , this co u rt h eld t hat mandatory

minimum s in the Fa i r SentencingAct of 2010 (“ F SA” ), Pub . L . N o. 11 1- 22 0, 12 4 St at. 23 72 , did no t a pp ly in 1 8 U .S.C. § 35 82 (c )( 2) pr oc e e din g s to de fe nd ants sentenc ed bef

ore the FSA wa s enac ted. Id

. at 1295. Since United States v. Augustinewa s d e c ide d, an inte r- c ir c uit sp lit has eme rg ed. See Un ite d S tates v . B le we tt , Nos. 12-5226, 12- 5582, 2013 U.S. A

pp. WL 2121945 (6th Cir. May 17, 2013) (holdingdefe ndants sentenc ed p ri or to the ena ctment of the FSA ar e entitled to re ductions). AF F IRMED.