United States of America v. Raphael Glappion Pinkney

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAPHAEL GLAPPION PINKNEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-10193
D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00026-MMD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Raphael Glappion Pinkney appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Pinkney contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a
district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See
United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Pinkney
is not entitled to a sentence reduction because his sentence was not “based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Rather, his sentence was based on the
statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(ii). The district
court properly denied relief. See Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095-96.
AFFIRMED.
15-10193 2

-- 2 of 2 --