USA V. RAPHAEL PINKNEY, No. 15-10193 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 15-10193 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00026-MMD v. MEMORANDUM* RAPHAEL GLAPPION PINKNEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 9, 2015** Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Raphael Glappion Pinkney 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, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Pinkney contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Pinkney is not entitled to a sentence reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Rather, his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(ii). The district court properly denied relief. See Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095-96. AFFIRMED. 2 15-10193

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.