United States v. Moises Pulido Jauregui , 637 F. App'x 244 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 15-2998
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Moises Pulido Jauregui, also known as Manuel Rivera De La Paz
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
    ____________
    Submitted: February 5, 2016
    Filed: February 11, 2016
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Moises Pulido Jauregui appeals after the District Court1 denied him a sentence
    reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We conclude that the court did not err in
    1
    The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota.
    denying the reduction because it could not reduce Jauregui’s sentence below his
    statutory minimum sentence. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (setting out a 10-year
    statutory mandatory minimum sentence for certain offenses); U.S. Sentencing
    Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A) (explaining that a § 3582(c)(2) reduction
    is not authorized if “the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the
    defendant’s applicable guideline range because of . . . a statutory mandatory minimum
    term of imprisonment”); Dillon v. United States, 
    560 U.S. 817
    , 827 (2010) (stating
    that § 3582(c) authorizes a district court to reduce a sentence by applying the
    amended Guidelines range as if it were in effect at the time of the original sentencing,
    leaving all other Guidelines determinations unaffected); United States v. Long, 
    757 F.3d 762
    , 763 (8th Cir. 2014) (standards of review), cert. denied, 
    135 S. Ct. 991
    (2015); United States v. Peters, 
    524 F.3d 905
    , 907 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (holding
    that § 3582(c)(2) did not authorize a modification because the defendant had received
    a statutory mandatory minimum sentence and the court could not address any alleged
    error from the original sentencing), cert. denied, 
    555 U.S. 922
    (2008).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to
    withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-2998

Citation Numbers: 637 F. App'x 244

Filed Date: 2/11/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023