United States v. Ronald Ellis

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50165
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00995-RGK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RONALD HERBERT ELLIS, a.k.a.
Blaster,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Herbert Ellis appeals from the district court’s order denying his
second 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. 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).
Ellis contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction because the Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”) reduces the mandatory minimum sentence for his
crack cocaine conviction and because subsequent amendments to the Sentencing
Guidelines lowered the Guidelines range applicable to his offense. 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).
Ellis’s 120-month sentence was the statutory mandatory minimum at the
time of sentencing. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2007). Because the FSA’s
reduced mandatory minimums do not apply to defendants sentenced before its
effective date, a reduction in Ellis’s sentence would not be consistent with the
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, and the district court
therefore lacked authority to modify Ellis’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 12-50165