Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Medora NANOFF, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-29
Citations: 397 F. App'x 407
Docket Number: No. 09-30154
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Medora NANOFF, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 407–408

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Medora NANOFF, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30154.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
Leif Johnson, James Edmund Seykora, Esquire, USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Palmer A. Hoovestal, Hoovestal Law Firm, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Medora Nanoff appeals from the district court's order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduced sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Nanoff contends that the district court erred by failing to lower her sentence in light of Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. This contention fails because NanofPs sentence was based on a mandatory minimum. See United States v. Jackson, 577 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (9th Cir.2009). Nanoffs arguments that her case is distinguishable from Jackson and that United States v. Auld, 321 F.3d 861 (9th Cir.2003), has been overruled are also without merit. See Jackson, 577 F.3d at 1034-35.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.