
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven LAVINSKY, AKA amhari99, AKA amhari99@yahoo.com, AKA Chabon, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-50428
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted February 16, 2018  Pasadena, California
    Filed February 22, 2018
    L. Ashley Aull, Aron Ketchel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Caleb Edward Mason, Attorney, Brown, White & Osborn LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MENDOZA, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable 'Salvador Mendoza, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The government appeals Steven Lavin-sky’s 48-month sentence of imprisonment, which is below the 60-month minimum mandated by statute. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vaeate Lavinsky’s sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing.

Lavinsky’s statute of conviction provides that “[wjhoever violates” that provision “shall be ... imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years.” 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(l) (emphases added). “It is axiomatic that a statutory minimum sentence is mandatory.” United States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2011). That is, “[w]here ‘no exception to the statutory minimum applies ..., the court lack[s] the authority to refuse to impose’ ” the mandatory minimum. Id. (quoting United States v. Haynes, 216 F.3d 789, 799-800 (9th Cir. 2000)). No exception applies here, but the district court sentenced Lavinsky to a below-minimum term of imprisonment nevertheless, explaining only that the circumstances of lifetime supervision made that sentence sufficient. That was error.

Lavinsky’s sole contention on appeal is that statutory mandatory minimum sentences are unconstitutional under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), but our precedent forecloses that argument. See United States v. Ching Tang Lo, 447 F.3d 1212, 1234 n.15 (9th Cir. 2006) (“There is nothing in Booker to suggest that statutorily mandated minimum sentences are merely advisory if the sentence is based on facts found by a jury by a preponderance of the evidence.”).

We therefore vaeate and remand for resentencing. On remand, the district court shall sentence Lavinsky within the range mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(l).

Sentence VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing. 
      
       -phis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . We decline Lavinsky’s invitation to strike the government’s opening brief and to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 31-2.3.
     