United States v. Taylor

349 F. App'x 142
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 13, 2009·No. No. 09-10107·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Lawrence Duane Taylor appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

[143] Taylor contends the district court had authority to lower his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) because his sentence was based on a range that has since been lowered by Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.2009), because Taylor received a mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). See also United States v. Bride, 581 F.3d 888, 889-90 (9th Cir.2009) (holding district court lacked authority to reduce sentence that was not based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Taylor, 349 F. App'x 142 (9th Cir. 2009).

349 F. App'x 142 (United States v. Taylor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Paulk
569 F.3d 1094 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Bride
581 F.3d 888 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)