United States v. Medora Nanoff
This text of 397 F. App'x 407 (United States v. Medora Nanoff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Medora Nanoff appeals from the district court’s order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduced sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Nanoff contends that the district court erred by failing to lower her sentence in light of Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. This contention fails because NanofPs sentence was based on a mandatory minimum. See United States v. Jackson, 577 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (9th Cir.2009). Nanoffs arguments that her case is distinguishable from Jackson and that United States v. Auld, 321 F.3d 861 (9th Cir.2003), has been overruled are also without merit. See Jackson, 577 F.3d at 1034-35.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
397 F. App'x 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-medora-nanoff-ca9-2010.