United States v. Moises Pulido Jauregui

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Duane Benton, Pasco M. Bowman and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4336059-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Katherine M. Menendez. [4365836] [15-2998]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2998
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Moises Pulido Jauregui, also known as Manuel Rivera De La Paz
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
____________
Submitted: February 5, 2016
Filed: February 11, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Moises Pulido Jauregui appeals after the District Court1 denied him a sentence
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We conclude that the court did not err in
1

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

Appellate Case: 15-2998

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Entry ID: 4365836

denying the reduction because it could not reduce Jauregui’s sentence below his
statutory minimum sentence. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (setting out a 10-year
statutory mandatory minimum sentence for certain offenses); U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A) (explaining that a § 3582(c)(2) reduction
is not authorized if “the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the
defendant’s applicable guideline range because of . . . a statutory mandatory minimum
term of imprisonment”); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010) (stating
that § 3582(c) authorizes a district court to reduce a sentence by applying the
amended Guidelines range as if it were in effect at the time of the original sentencing,
leaving all other Guidelines determinations unaffected); United States v. Long, 757
F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir. 2014) (standards of review), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 991
(2015); United States v. Peters, 524 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (holding
that § 3582(c)(2) did not authorize a modification because the defendant had received
a statutory mandatory minimum sentence and the court could not address any alleged
error from the original sentencing), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 922 (2008).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2998

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Entry ID: 4365836