Court Opinion

ID: 3181276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-01 00:05:04.777093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:57.465754
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      FEB 29 2016
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 15-30090

              Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:09-cr-02012-EFS

    v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
 GERARDO MIRANDA-MENDOZA,
 a.k.a. Rafael Ibanez-Naranjo,

              Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of Washington
                      Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted February 24, 2016**

Before:        LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

         Gerardo Miranda-Mendoza appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

         *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
         **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Miranda-Mendoza contends that the district court erred by denying him a

sentence reduction under Amendments 782 and 788 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See

United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to

Miranda-Mendoza’s contention, his 120-month sentence was not based on the

Guidelines; rather, it was the lowest sentence that the court could impose by

statute. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). Because Miranda-Mendoza was

sentenced based on the statutory mandatory minimum, the district court correctly

concluded that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10

cmt. n.1(A); Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095-96.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                15-30090