Opinion
22-10087
11-23-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEROME ISAAKO LAUINA, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick K. Watson, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00999-DKW-1
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Jerome Isaako Lauina appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
To the extent Lauina's motion sought compassionate release, the district court properly denied relief because as the government asserts, Lauina failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1282 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that § 3582(c)(1)(A)'s exhaustion requirement "is mandatory and must be enforced when properly raised by the government"). To the extent Lauina sought relief under section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, the district court properly concluded that the First Step Act is inapplicable to Lauina because he was sentenced after the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act. See Pub. L. No. 115391, § 404(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018) (making certain portions of the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive to defendants sentenced before August 3, 2010).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).