USA V. KATO IOSUA, No. 15-10372 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-10372 D.C. No. 1:08-cr-00542-HG MEMORANDUM* KATO AMOSA IOSUA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Kato Amosa Iosua 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. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm. Iosua contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court correctly concluded that Iosua is ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence is already below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”). Contrary to Iosua’s contention, section 1B1.10(b) does not impermissibly restrict the discretion of the district court to reduce a sentence in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United States v. Davis, 739 F.3d 1222, 1225-26 (9th Cir. 2014). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 15-10372

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.