FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              DEC 19 2016

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS



                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 16-10032

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No. 1:02-cr-00174-HG

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
POLOTANI LATU, a.k.a. P, a.k.a. Paul,

              Defendant-Appellant.


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Hawaii
                    Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 14, 2016**

Before:      WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

      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.



      *
             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).
      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, 

, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). Latu’s 240-month sentence reflects

the mandatory minimum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 848(a). The mandatory

minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See 

-

48. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that it had no authority to reduce

Latu’s sentence below 240 months. See 

      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, 

, 826 (2010).

      AFFIRMED.




                                          2                                    16-10032