Opinion
No. 08-50167.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed December 15, 2008.
Jeffrey Backhus, Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Dermaine Jones, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:05-cr-01070-DSF.
Before: GOODWIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
This is an appeal from the district court's order denying appellant's request that his sentence be reduced on the basis of the disparity between sentences for crack and powder cocaine.
The motion for summary disposition is granted because the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Appellant received the mandatory minimum sentence for his conviction for distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (b)(1)(A)(iii). Appellant's contention that he should be resentenced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines fails because that amendment is inapplicable where defendant has received a mandatory minimum sentence. See Kimbrough v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.