United States of America v. Toijuana Gene Collins, aka TOIJUANA COLLINS and G-RED

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
TOIJUANA GENE COLLINS, aka
TOIJUANA COLLINS and G-RED,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-50182
D.C. No. 2:99-cr-01137-R-1
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 10, 2009**
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Toijuana Gene Collins appeals from the district court’s order denying his
motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Collins contends that the district court erred in finding that it did not have
authority under § 3582(c)(2) to modify his sentence. Because Collins was
sentenced based on the mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) for a
defendant with his criminal history, and not based on the Sentencing Guidelines,
he is ineligible for the modification that he seeks. His case is squarely controlled
by United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), in which we
held that a defendant with a sentence “based on the statutory mandatory minimum
under 21 U.S.C. § 841” is “not entitled to a reduction [under § 3582(c)(2)] because
his sentence was not ‘based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission.’” See Paulk, 569 F. 3d at 1095 (quoting
18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2)); see also U.S.S.G § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A) (2008) (“[A]
reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is not authorized under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . . . if . . . the amendment does not have the effect of lowering
the defendant’s applicable guidelines range because of the operation of another
guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment)”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --