United States v. Dray Mosby ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        NOV 2 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 20-10034
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:17-cr-00389-RS-2
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    DRAY TERRY MOSBY,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 26, 2020**
    Before:      McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    Dray Terry Mosby 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.
    Mosby contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under section
    *
    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).
    404 of the First Step Act of 2018 and Amendment 750 to the Sentencing
    Guidelines. The record reflects that Mosby was convicted of conspiracy to
    distribute methamphetamine and sentenced to the statutory minimum term set forth
    in 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b) and 846. Contrary to Mosby’s contention, neither the First
    Step Act nor Amendment 750 authorized the district court to modify this sentence.
    See First Step Act § 404(b) (permitting limited resentencing of defendants
    sentenced for crack cocaine offenses); United States v. Charles, 
    749 F.3d 767
    , 770-
    71 (9th Cir. 2014) (Amendment 750 modified drug guidelines for defendants
    sentenced for crack cocaine offenses); see also United States v. Sykes, 
    658 F.3d 1140
    , 1146 (9th Cir. 2011) (“retroactive amendment to the Guidelines cannot
    reduce a sentence below the statutory minimum term”).
    We decline to consider Mosby’s additional claims because they are raised
    for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Valdez-Novoa, 
    780 F.3d 906
    , 914
    (9th Cir. 2015).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   20-10034
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-10034

Filed Date: 11/2/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/2/2020