Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karinn GARDNER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-21
Citations: 530 F. App'x 663
Docket Number: No. 12-30032
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karinn GARDNER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 530
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karinn GARDNER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-30032.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2013.
Filed June 21, 2013.
Kyle G. French, Assistant U.S., U.S. Department of Justice, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Meredith Appel Ahearn, Law Office of Meredith Ahearn, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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
Karinn Gardner appeals from the district court's order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gardner contends that she is entitled to a sentence reduction based on the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 ("FSA") and subsequent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that lowered the Guidelines ranges for crack cocaine offenses. We review de novo whether the district court had authority to modify a defendant's sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir.2012).
Gardner's 120-month sentence was the statutory mandatory minimum at the time of sentencing. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2009). Because the FSA's reduced mandatory minimums do not apply to defendants sentenced before its effective date, a reduction in Gardner's sentence would not be consistent with the policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, and the district court proper ly denied Gardner's motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A); United States v. Augustine, 712 F.3d 1290, 1295 (9th Cir.2013).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.