Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony PETERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-29
Citations: 402 F. App'x 211
Docket Number: No. 09-30388
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Anthony PETERS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 211–212

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Anthony PETERS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-30388.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 29, 2010.
Carl E. Rostad, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Daniel Donovan, Esquire, Thompson, Potts & Donovan, P.C., Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
Michael Anthony Peters appeals from his 120-month mandatory minimum sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Peters contends that his mandatory minimum sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Peters's contention is foreclosed. United States v. Wipf, 620 F.3d 1168, 1170-71 (9th Cir.2010) (Section 3553 does not authorize a court to impose a sentence below the mandatory statutory minimum.).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.