United States of America v. Charles William Axtell

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES WILLIAM AXTELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30067
D.C. No. 3:05-cr-00030-EJL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Charles William Axtell appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his second 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence and the order
denying his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30067
Axtell contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction because the Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”) applies retroactively to reduce the mandatory
minimum sentence imposed for his crack cocaine conviction and because
subsequent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines lowered the applicable
sentencing Guidelines range. We review de novo whether the district court had
authority to modify a defendant’s sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United
States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2012).
Axtell’s 120-month sentence was the statutory mandatory minimum at the
time of sentencing. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2005). Because the FSA’s
reduced mandatory minimums do not apply to defendants sentenced before its
effective date, a reduction in Axtell’s sentence would not be consistent with the
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, and the district court
therefore lacked authority to modify Axtell’s sentence. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); United States v. Augustine, 712 F.3d
1290, 1295 (9th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the district court properly denied
Axtell’s motions.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --