1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE AND FOR COUNSEL- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AWAD YIMER AYNISHER,

Defendant.

NO. CR06-026RSL

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTIONS TO REDUCE

SENTENCE AND FOR COUNSEL

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on pro se petitioner’s “Motion Seeking Modification

of Sentence” (Dkt. #422) and for counsel to represent him on this motion (Dkt. #425). Having

reviewed the submissions of the parties and the applicable law, the Court DENIES petitioner’s

motions. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Reduce Sentence

Petitioner moves for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which

provides:

[I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a

sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau

of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after

considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable,

if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission.

However, § 3582(c)(2) is inapplicable here because defendant’s sentence was not based on a sentencing

Case 2:06-cr-00026-RSL Document 426 Filed 01/08/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE AND FOR COUNSEL- 2

range that was lowered. Defendant was sentenced to a 10 year mandatory minimum required by statute. 

See 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1). The Sentencing Commission has not altered and cannot alter a statutory

mandatory minimum sentence, and that mandate continues to apply. See, e.g., United States v. Paulk,

569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009) (“We must decide whether a defendant sentenced pursuant to a

statutory mandatory minimum is entitled to a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We

conclude that the district court has no authority to reduce a sentence in these circumstances . . . .”)

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) also does not apply here because Mr. Aynisher’s sentence was

based on a binding plea agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). See Dkt.#432-2 at

5. This Court has no authority to alter a sentence imposed under this provision. See Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) (“ . . .such a recommendation or request binds the court once the court

accepts the plea agreement”); see also United States v. Pacheco-Navarette, 432 F.3d 967, 971 (9th

Cir. 2005). 

For both the reasons cited above, petitioner’s motion is DENIED. 

B. Motion for Counsel 

After submitting his motion for a sentence reduction, Mr. Aynisher filed another letter

motion (Dkt. #425) requesting the Court appoint a lawyer to represent him in this motion. For

the reasons outlined above, petitioner’s motion fails as a matter of law. The Court also DENIES

his motion for counsel. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES petitioner’s motions to reduce sentence

(Dkt. #422) and for counsel (Dkt. #425).

DATED this 8th day of January, 2010.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00026-RSL Document 426 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 2