United States of America v. Karinn Gardner

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
KARINN GARDNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30032
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00033-RRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Karinn Gardner appeals from the district court’s order denying her 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gardner contends that she is entitled to a sentence reduction based on the
FILED
JUN 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30032 2
Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”) and subsequent amendments to the
Sentencing Guidelines that lowered the Guidelines ranges for crack cocaine
offenses. 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).
Gardner’s 120-month sentence was the statutory mandatory minimum at the
time of sentencing. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2009). Because the FSA’s
reduced mandatory minimums do not apply to defendants sentenced before its
effective date, a reduction in Gardner’s sentence would not be consistent with the
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, and the district court
properly denied Gardner’s motion. 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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --