Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jay KENT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-10
Citations: 542 F. App'x 565
Docket Number: No. 12-10507
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jay KENT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: D.W. NELSON, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 542
Pages: 565–565

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jay KENT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10507.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 7, 2013.
Filed Oct. 10, 2013.
Merry Jean Chan, Esquire, Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daniel Blank, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: D.W. NELSON, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, 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
Jay Kent appeals the denial of his motion for reduction in sentence brought under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.
Assuming, without deciding, that Kent's motion for reduction in sentence did not violate his plea agreement, our holding in United States v. Augustine, 712 F.3d 1290 (9th Cir.2013), forecloses Kent's arguments that the Fair Sentencing Act's mandatory mínimums should apply retroactively to defendants sentenced before the Act was enacted. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kent's § 3582(c)(2) motion.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.