United States v. Gerardo Miranda-Mendoza ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30090
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-02012-EFS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GERARDO MIRANDA-MENDOZA,
a.k.a. Rafael Ibanez-Naranjo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Gerardo Miranda-Mendoza appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his motion for 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).
Miranda-Mendoza contends that the district court erred by denying him a
sentence reduction under Amendments 782 and 788 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See
United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to
Miranda-Mendoza’s contention, his 120-month sentence was not based on the
Guidelines; rather, it was the lowest sentence that the court could impose by
statute. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). Because Miranda-Mendoza was
sentenced based on the statutory mandatory minimum, the district court correctly
concluded that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10
cmt. n.1(A); Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095-96.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-30090