United States v. Martinez-Anaya , 75 F. App'x 737 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SEP 18 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 03-2104
ARMANDO MARTINEZ-ANAYA, (D.C. No. CIV-03-256 LH/LFG)
(D. New Mexico)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
Defendant Armando Martinez-Anaya, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, appeals
the district court’s denial of his motion for sentence modification filed pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We affirm.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or
more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). He was sentenced to a 120-month minimum
mandatory term of imprisonment. In his § 3582(c)(2) motion, defendant argued the
sentencing range applicable to his convictions had been lowered retroactively by
Amendment 640 to the Guidelines and that his sentence should be reduced accordingly.
See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3). The district court concluded that defendant was not entitled
to relief because he was given the minimum statutory sentence and therefore was not
eligible for a discretionary reduction under § 3582(c)(2).
A district court may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment pursuant to
§ 3582(c)(2) when the applicable sentencing range is lowered by the Sentencing
Commission after the defendant is sentenced. However, defendant’s sentence was
controlled by the applicable statutory mandatory minimum. He was sentenced to the
statutory mandatory minimum of 120 months, a term of imprisonment that must be
imposed when a defendant is convicted of possession with intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine.
See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(ii); see also U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b) (“Where a statutorily
required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline
2
range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.”).
Amendment 640 did not amend § 841(b)(1)(A)(ii). The district court was correct in
concluding that defendant was not eligible for a reduction of sentence under § 3582(c)(2).
See United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539, 542 (10th Cir. 1997) (concluding defendant
not entitled to reduction in sentence pursuant to Amendment 516 because original
sentence was statutory minimum term of 60 months).1
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
1
In his reply brief, defendant requests application of the safety valve provision
found in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. This issue was not raised before the district court and will not
be considered. See United States v. Arzaga, 9 F.3d 91, 94 (10th Cir. 1993).
3