United States v. Estanislao Pulido , 670 F. App'x 468 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 01 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10569
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:04-CR-05327-AWI
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ESTANISLAO PULIDO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Estanislao Pulido 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Pulido 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). Pulido’s 120-month sentence reflects
the mandatory minimum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). The
mandatory minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See United States
v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2011). Therefore, the district court
correctly concluded that it had no authority to reduce Pulido’s sentence below 120
months. See id. at 1148.
Pulido’s claim that the government breached the plea agreement is not
cognizable in this proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826
(2010) (section 3582(c)(2) does not permit a “plenary resentencing proceeding”).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-10569