From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Waipa

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 22, 2016
No. 15-10392 (9th Cir. Jun. 22, 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-10392

06-22-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS WAIPA, Defendant - Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 1:11-cr-00381-JMS MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, Chief Judge, Presiding Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Travis Waipa 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. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011), we affirm.

Waipa contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. In the alternative, he argues that, even if Amendment 782 does not authorize a reduction in his sentence, the district court should have resentenced him to 108 months, the bottom of his Guidelines range. These claims fail. Waipa's 120-month sentence reflects the mandatory minimum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). 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 Waipa's sentence below 120 months. See id. at 1148.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Waipa

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 22, 2016
No. 15-10392 (9th Cir. Jun. 22, 2016)
Case details for

United States v. Waipa

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS WAIPA, Defendant…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 22, 2016

Citations

No. 15-10392 (9th Cir. Jun. 22, 2016)

Citing Cases

United States v. Zuniga

The minimum mandatory sentence was, and is still, appropriate because Amendment 782 did not change statutory…

United States v. Quinones

" U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment n.1. Put another way, "[t]he mandatory minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2)…