Raulin Sanchez-Cordero v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appeal from the United States District Court for the…

CLD-118 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3933
___________
RAULIN SANCHEZ-CORDERO,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Criminal No. 02-cr-00593-001)
District Judge: Honorable Katharine S. Hayden
__________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal for Untimeliness, or for Possible
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 26, 2009
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Filed March 12, 2009)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM
Raulin Sanchez-Cordero was sentenced to a 120-month statutory mandatory
minimum on November 25, 2002. Sanchez-Cordero filed pro se a motion in the District
Court of New Jersey seeking to have his sentence reduced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

-- 1 of 2 --

2
3582(c)(2). The District Court denied his motion, finding that Sanchez-Cordero was
ineligible for any reduction because he was sentenced to a statutory mandatory minimum.
Petitioner timely appeals. See United States v. Grana, 864 F.2d 312, 316 (3d Cir. 1989).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may summarily affirm the District
Court’s judgment if the appeal presents no substantial question. 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and
I.O.P. 10.6. For the reasons that follow, we will do so.
Sanchez-Cordero is not eligible for a sentence reduction because he was sentenced
to a mandatory minimum. He pleaded guilty to a crime involving more than fifty grams
of crack cocaine with a statutory minimum of 10 years. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). Amendment
706 to the Sentencing Guidelines lowered the base offense levels for cocaine base
offenses. Amendment 706 is inapplicable in this instance because the Sentencing
Commission has not altered and cannot alter a statutory mandatory minimum sentence.
See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 app. note 1(A) (“[A] reduction in the defendant’s term of
imprisonment is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and is not consistent with this
policy statement if ... the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s
applicable guideline range because of the operation of ... another statutory provision (e.g.,
a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment”)). As this appeal presents no
substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir.
LAR 27.4 and 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

-- 2 of 2 --