United States v. Andre Holland , 365 F. App'x 751 ( 2009 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 17 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-50434
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 5:01-cr-0011-VAP-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ANDRE PATRICK HOLLAND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 6, 2009
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SEDWICK, ** District
Judge.
The district court did not err in denying Holland’s request to apply the
“safety valve” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) on a motion for reduction of sentence under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), because modification of a sentence under § 3582(c)(2)
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable John W. Sedwick, United States District Judge for the
District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
“does not amount to a new sentencing for purposes of the safety valve statute.”
United States v. Stockdale, 129 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir. 1997). Moreover,
Sentencing Commission policy statements prevent use of § 3553(f) in § 3582(c)
proceedings. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10(a)(3), 1B1.10(b)(1). “[C]onsistency with
the policy statements is a mandatory condition” under § 3582(c)(2). United States
v. Sipai, 582 F.3d 994, 995 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
-2-