
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Isiah SMITH, Appellant.
    
    15-3544
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    September 27, 2016
    FOR APPELLANT: BARCLAY T. JOHNSON, Research and Writing Attorney, for Michael L. Desautels, Federal Public Defender, District of Vermont.
    FOR APPELLEE: BARBARA A. MAS-TERSON, GREGORY L. WAPLES, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Eric S. Miller, United States Attorney for the District of Vermont.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, DEBRA A. LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges, JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption to conform with the above.
    
    
      
      The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Isiah Smith pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin and 28 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 Ü.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. He was sentenced to 78 months of imprisonment on June 4, 2012.

On January 6, 2015, Smith filed a pro se motion for a reduction in sentence based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The district court (Sessions, J.) denied the motion on the ground that his sentence was already shorter than the bottom of the Guidelines range that would result from the two-level reduction, and that further reduction is barred by section 1B1.10 of the Sentencing Guidelines, which governs the retroactive reduction of sentences and forbids any reduction that is “less than the minimum of the amended guidelines range.” U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A). And though the Sentencing Guidelines are now advisory at original sentencing, see Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the Supreme’ Court has held that they are mandatory in the context of resentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

Smith appeals from the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction, arguing that the section 1B1.10 prohibition on reductions that result in sentences below the amended guidelines range exceeds the Sentencing Commission’s statutory authority and violates the separation of powers. He acknowledges that our precedent defeats his argument, citing United States v. Montanez, 717 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 2013); United States v. Erskine, 717 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2013); and United States v. Steele, 714 F.3d 751 (2d Cir. 2013). But he appeals nevertheless to preserve his claim for further review. As he anticipates, we adhere (as we must) to the decisions he cites.

Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  