United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Marc Brock Palmer, Defendant-appellant, 91 F.3d 157 (9th Cir. 1996)
Annotate this CaseBefore: CHOY, SKOPIL, and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Marc Palmer appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his term of imprisonment. Palmer contends that he is entitled under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2) to a reduction based on a recent amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). That amendment provides for an equivalency ratio of one marijuana plant to 100 grams of processed marijuana per plant regardless of the number of plants. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, App.C., amend. 516 (Nov. 1995).
We agree with Palmer that the retroactive application of the amendment would reduce his sentencing guideline range. Palmer's sentence was not, however, predicated on the sentencing guideline range, but rather on the statutory minimum provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (B) (vii). "Where a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence." U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1. (b). Thus, the district court did not have discretion to reduce Palmer's sentence and therefore correctly denied his motion. See United States v. Sharp, 883 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3
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.
