Summary
holding that district court could not reduce defendant's sentence below the 120-month statutory mandatory minimum
Summary of this case from United States v. QuinonesOpinion
No. 16-30028
02-27-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OSWALDO ZUNIGA-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Oswaldo Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00023-DWM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Oswaldo Zuniga-Sanchez appeals pro se from the district court's order granting in part Zuniga-Sanchez's 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.
The district court reduced Zuniga-Sanchez's sentence to 120 months, which reflects the mandatory minimum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Zuniga-Sanchez contends that he is entitled to a further reduction. We review de novo a district court's refusal to depart below the mandatory minimum. See United States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). Because the mandatory minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings, the district court correctly concluded that it could not reduce Zuniga-Sanchez's sentence any further than it did. See Sykes, 658 F.3d at 1148.
Zuniga-Sanchez's challenge to the district court's denial of safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) is not cognizable in this proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010) (only aspects of the sentence affected by the amendment may be raised in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings).
AFFIRMED.