Court Opinion

ID: 3162783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-12-15 21:01:15.028435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:42.948831
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 15 2015

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 15-10193

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00026-MMD

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
RAPHAEL GLAPPION PINKNEY,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Nevada
                     Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted December 9, 2015**

Before:        WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

      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.

          *
             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).
      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)(1)(B)(ii). The district

court properly denied relief. See Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095-96.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   15-10193