United States v. Andre Holland

365 F. App'x 751

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 17, 2009
• Docket: 08-50434
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The district court did not err in denying Holland’s request to apply the “safety valve” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) on a motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), because modification of a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) “does not amount to a new sentencing for purposes of the safety valve statute.” United States v. Stockdale, 129 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir. 1997). Moreover, Sentencing Commission policy statements prevent use of § 3553(f) in § 3582(c) proceedings. See U.S.S.G. §§ lB1.10(a)(3), 1B1.10(b)(1). “[CJonsis-tency with the policy statements is a mandatory condition” under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Sipai, 582 F.3d 994, 995 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.