United States v. Polotani Latu

671 F. App'x 611

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 19, 2016
• Docket: 16-10032
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Polotani Latu appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Latu contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). Latu’s 240-month sentence reflects the mandatoiy minimum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 848(a). The mandatory minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See Sykes, 658 F.3d at 1147-48. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that it had no authority to reduce Latu’s sentence below 240 months. See id. at 1148.

To the extent Latu contends that he would not be charged with a crime carrying a mandatory minimum sentence under current Department of Justice discretionary policy, his claim is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2688, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.