USA V. OSWALDO ZUNIGA-SANCHEZ, No. 16-30028 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED FEB 27 2017 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-30028 D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00023-DWM v. MEMORANDUM* OSWALDO ZUNIGA-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Oswaldo Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Oswaldo Zuniga-Sanchez appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting in part Zuniga-Sanchez’s 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. * 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). The district court reduced Zuniga-Sanchez’s sentence to 120 months, which reflects the mandatory minimum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Zuniga-Sanchez contends that he is entitled to a further reduction. We review de novo a district court’s refusal to depart below the mandatory minimum. See United States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). Because the mandatory minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings, the district court correctly concluded that it could not reduce Zuniga-Sanchez’s sentence any further than it did. See Sykes, 658 F.3d at 1148. Zuniga-Sanchez’s challenge to the district court’s denial of safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) is not cognizable in this proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010) (only aspects of the sentence affected by the amendment may be raised in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings). AFFIRMED. 2 16-30028

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.