Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PENG XIANG LI, a.k.a. Sgt. Stephen, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-01
Citations: 667 F. App'x 681
Docket Number: No. 15-10503
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PENG XIANG LI, a.k.a. Sgt. Stephen, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 681–682

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PENG XIANG LI, a.k.a. Sgt. Stephen, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10503
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
FILED August 1, 2016
David Countryman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, William Frentzen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Derek Owens, J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peng Xiang Li, Post, TX, Pro Se.
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
Peng Xiang Li 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, and we affirm.
Li 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. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009). Li is not entitled to a sentence reduction because his sentence was not "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Rather, his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vii). Accordingly, the district court properly denied relief. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.