
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Polotani LATU, a.k.a. P, a.k.a. Paul, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10032
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 19, 2016
    Thomas C. Muehleck, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Polotani Latu, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Polotani Latu 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.

Latu 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. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). Latu’s 240-month sentence reflects the mandatoiy minimum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 848(a). The mandatory minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See Sykes, 658 F.3d at 1147-48. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that it had no authority to reduce Latu’s sentence below 240 months. See id. at 1148.

To the extent Latu contends that he would not be charged with a crime carrying a mandatory minimum sentence under current Department of Justice discretionary policy, his claim is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2688, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     