United States v. Jay Kent
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Jay Kent appeals the denial of his motion for reduction in sentence brought under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.
Assuming, without deciding, that Kent’s motion for reduction in sentence did not violate his plea agreement, our holding in United States v. Augustine, 712 F.3d 1290 (9th Cir.2013), forecloses Kent’s arguments that the Fair Sentencing Act’s mandatory mínimums should apply retroactively to defendants sentenced before the Act was enacted. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kent’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
542 F. App'x 565 (United States v. Jay Kent) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.