Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edison SHINO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-01
Citations: 656 F. App'x 340
Docket Number: No. 15-10208
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edison SHINO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 656
Pages: 340–341

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edison SHINO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10208
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
FILED August 01, 2016
Karen A. Escobar, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kathleen Anne Servatius, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Hannah Labaree, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Edison Shino appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3682(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Shino contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680 (9th Cir. 2014). As the district court correctly concluded, even assuming that Amendment 782 reduced Shino's Guidelines range to 210-262 months, Shino is ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence is already below the minimum of that range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) ("[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range."). Moreover, as Shino acknowledges, his argument that applying section 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) to his case violates the Ex Post Facto Clause is foreclosed by our decision in Waters. See Waters, 771 F.3d at 681.
We decline to consider Shino's argument, raised for the first time in his reply brief, that Waters is distinguishable. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.