Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Travis WAIPA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-22
Citations: 667 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 15-10392
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Travis WAIPA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 217–217

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Travis WAIPA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10392
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
FILED June 22, 2016
Thomas C. Muehleck, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Travis Waipa, Mendota, CA, Pro Se.
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Travis Waipa appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011), we affirm.
Waipa contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. In the alternative, he argues that, even if Amendment 782 does not authorize a reduction in his sentence, the district court should have resentenced him to 108 months, the bottom of his Guidelines range. These claims fail. Waipa's 120-month sentence reflects the mandatory minimum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). The mandatory minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See Sykes, 658 F.3d at 1147-48. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that it had no authority to reduce Waipa's sentence below 120 months. See id. at 1148.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.