Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raphael Glappion PINKNEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-15
Citations: 624 F. App'x 582
Docket Number: No. 15-10193
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raphael Glappion PINKNEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 582–583

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raphael Glappion PINKNEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10193.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
Filed Dec. 15, 2015.
Amber Marie Craig, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. - Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esq., Assistant U.S., USRE-Office of the' U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Raphael Glappion Pinkney, Pekin, IL, pro se.
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, 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
Raphael Glappion Pinkney 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.
Pinkney 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) (per curiam). Pinkney 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)(l)(B)(ii). The district court properly denied relief. See Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095-96.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.