United States of America v. Kato Amosa Iosua

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KATO AMOSA IOSUA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10372
D.C. No. 1:08-cr-00542-HG
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-10372
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 of 2 --