
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Herbert ELLIS, a.k.a. Blaster, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50165.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 5, 2013.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA Jeffrey Backhus, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Fred W. Slaughter, Assistant U.S., AUSA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Santa Ana Branch Office, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Davina T. Chen, Law Office of Davina T. Chen, Glendale, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ronald Herbert Ellis appeals from the district court’s order denying his second 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ellis contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction because the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”) reduces the mandatory minimum sentence for his crack cocaine conviction and because subsequent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines lowered the Guidelines range applicable to his offense. We review de novo whether the district court had authority to modify a defendant’s sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir.2012).

Ellis’s 120-month sentence was the statutory mandatory minimum at the time of sentencing. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2007). Because the FSA’s reduced mandatory mínimums do not apply to defendants sentenced before its effective date, a reduction in Ellis’s sentence would not be consistent with the policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, and the district court therefore lacked authority to modify Ellis’s sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A); United States v. Augustine, 712 F.3d 1290, 1295 (9th Cir.2013).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     