United States of America v. Gerardo Miranda-Mendoza, a.k.a. Rafael Ibanez-Naranjo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GERARDO MIRANDA-MENDOZA,
a.k.a. Rafael Ibanez-Naranjo,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-30090
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-02012-EFS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Gerardo Miranda-Mendoza appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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).
FILED
FEB 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-30090
Miranda-Mendoza contends that the district court erred by denying him a
sentence reduction under Amendments 782 and 788 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See
United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to
Miranda-Mendoza’s contention, his 120-month sentence was not based on the
Guidelines; rather, it was the lowest sentence that the court could impose by
statute. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). Because Miranda-Mendoza was
sentenced based on the statutory mandatory minimum, the district court correctly
concluded that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10
cmt. n.1(A); Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095-96.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --