22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4fd,MEMORANDUM Polotani Latu 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. Latu 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. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). Latu’s 240-month sentence reflects the mandatoiy minimum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 848 (a). The mandatory minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See Sykes, 658 F.3d at 1147-48 . Thus, the district court correctly concluded that it had no authority to reduce Latu’s sentence below 240 months. See id. at 1148 . To the extent Latu contends that he would not be charged with a crime carrying a mandatory minimum sentence under current Department of Justice discretionary policy, his claim is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 , 130 S.Ct. 2688 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T52f,

MEMORANDUM

Polotani Latu 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.

Latu 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. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). Latu’s 240-month sentence reflects the mandatoiy minimum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 848 (a). The mandatory minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See Sykes, 658 F.3d at 1147-48 . Thus, the district court correctly concluded that it had no authority to reduce Latu’s sentence below 240 months. See id. at 1148 .

To the extent Latu contends that he would not be charged with a crime carrying a mandatory minimum sentence under current Department of Justice discretionary policy, his claim is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 , 130 S.Ct. 2688 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.