United States v. Estanislao Pulido

MEMORANDUM

Estanislao Pulido 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.

Pulido contends that he is entitled to a sentence induction 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). Pulido’s 120-month sentence reflects the mandatory minimum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(A). The mandatory minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See United States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2011). Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that it had no authority to reduce Pulido’s sentence below 120 months. See id. at 1148 .

Pulido’s claim that the government breached the plea agreement is not cognizable in this proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 , 130 S.Ct. 2683 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (section 3582(c)(2) does not permit a “plenary re-sentencing proceeding”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for…