United States v. Bruce Sutton ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50185
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00602-GAF
v.
MEMORANDUM *
BRUCE DWIGHT SUTTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013 **
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Bruce Dwight Sutton appeals from the district court’s order granting his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Sutton contends that he is entitled to a further reduction of sentence based on
*
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).
the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”) and subsequent amendments to the
Sentencing Guidelines that lowered the Guidelines ranges for crack cocaine
offenses. We review de novo whether the district court had authority to modify a
defendant’s sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Austin, 676
F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2012).
The district court granted Sutton’s motion and reduced his sentence to 120
months, the statutory mandatory minimum at the time of sentencing. See 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2008). Because the FSA’s reduced mandatory minimums
do not apply to defendants sentenced before its effective date, a reduction in
Sutton’s sentence below 120 months would not be consistent with the policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, and the district court properly
declined to further modify Sutton’s sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2);
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); United States v. Augustine, 712 F.3d 1290, 1295
(9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-50185