NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

RUBEN MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-50025

D.C. No.

2:05-cr-00578-JFW-28

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 14, 2021

Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,**

District Judge.

Defendant/Appellant Ruben Medina appeals the district court’s 

denial of his motion for a reduced sentence pursuant to the First Step 

Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018) (FSA). We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is 

not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District 

Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUN 1 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review denials of FSA 

motions for sentence reductions for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 52 (2007) (explaining that the abuse of 

discretion standard “applies to all sentencing decisions”). We affirm.

Assuming that Medina committed covered offenses that

rendered him eligible to move for a sentence reduction pursuant to the 

FSA, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his 

motion.

Medina was sentenced for the offenses giving rise to this appeal 

in 2007, or eleven years before the FSA was enacted, and his original 

twenty-year sentence has not since been disturbed. Medina’s 

conspiracy to manufacture and distribute crack cocaine base and 

distribute methamphetamine was charged as a violation of both 21 

U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). Since this offense involved at least 500 

grams of a substance containing a detectable amount of 

methamphetamine, or at least 50 grams of methamphetamine, 21 

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) (2006) was one of the applicable penalty 

provisions. See United States v. Kelley, 962 F.3d 470, 475 (9th Cir. 

2020). And Medina’s 2000 conviction for possession of cocaine for 

sale in violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11351 was a 
3 

predicate felony drug offense that triggered increased statutory 

penalties under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) (2006). See 21 U.S.C. § 

802(44).

Under these circumstances, Medina was subject to a twentyyear mandatory minimum sentence for the methamphetamine aspect 

of his multi-drug conspiracy offense. See 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) (2006) (“If any person commits such a violation 

after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, 

such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may 

not be less than 20 years.”). And, although § 401 of the FSA reduced 

the statutory sentencing enhancements for qualifying predicate drug 

convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), Medina cannot benefit from 

this change in the law.

The FSA’s amendments to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) concerning 

enhanced sentences based upon prior drug convictions are applicable 

only in cases where “a sentence for the offense has not been imposed 

as of [December 21, 2018].” United States v. Asuncion, 974 F.3d 929

(9th Cir. 2020), held that a sentence is “‘imposed’ when the district 

court pronounces the sentence,” id. at 934, which, in this case,

occurred in 2007. Therefore, the predicate offense originally applied 
4 

to enhance Medina’s conspiracy sentence remains applicable, 

resulting in a minimum twenty-year sentence on that charge. Had the 

district court elected to resentence Medina on the crack cocaine 

possession charge, which it could have (the parties recognized that 

charge certainly qualified as a “covered offense”), the sentence on the 

conspiracy count would still have been a twenty-year mandatory 

minimum, as “a sentence for [that] offense [had] been imposed as of 

[December 21, 2018].” (emphasis added).

The district court thus correctly recognized that Medina’s prior 

conviction for possession of cocaine for sale would no longer qualify 

as a predicate felony offense, and would not trigger a 20-year 

mandatory minimum, under current law. Still, Medina cannot now 

benefit from the FSA’s amendments to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) concerning 

increased sentences based upon prior drug convictions. Because 

Medina’s twenty-year sentence for his conspiracy offense is at its 

statutory floor, the district court could not reduce it. See United States 

v. Sharp, 883 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1989). For these reasons, the 

district court did not err when it denied Medina’s FSA motion for a 

reduced sentence.

AFFIRMED.