United States v. Moises Pulido Jauregui


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Duane Benton, Pasco M. Bowman and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4336059-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms.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

Download PDF
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Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: February 5, 2016 Filed: February 11, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?