NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 ha ve

* 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 APPEALS2

jurisdiction under 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 . 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, o r 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) (200 6 ) 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 a3

predicate felony drug offe nse that trigger ed increased statutory penalties under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) (200 6 )

. See 21 U.S.C. § 802(44)

. Under these circumstances, Medina was subject to a twenty

year mandatory minimum sentence for the methamphetamine aspect
of his multi

- drug conspiracy offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) (200 6 ) (“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 F SA reduced
the statutory sentencing enhancements for qualifying predicate drug
convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b) , Medina cannot benefit from
th is change in the law.
The F SA ’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 [D ecember 21, 2018].” U nited 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 applied4

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, w hich 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 [Dec e mber 21, 2018] .” ( e mphasis 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 fo r 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, t he
district court did not err when it denied Medina’s FSA motion for a
reduced sentence

. AFFIRMED.