MEMORANDUM
Luong appeals from the district court’s imposition of a five-year consecutive sentence for one violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (1997). We review a district court’s construction and application of a mandatory minimum sentence provision de novo. United States v. Hoyt, 879 F.2d 505, 511 (9th Cir.1989), as amended, 888 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir.1989). We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We affirm.
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) requires a mandatory consecutive five-year sentence for its violation, and the district court had no choice but to impose it in sentencing Luong. See United States v. Hungerford, 465 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.2006). Luong contends that in a separate case filed in the Eastern District of California, the district court’s money laundering sentences improperly considered his section 924(c) conviction which is before us. However, it is the Eastern District of California court’s sentence with which Luong actually takes issue, not this appeal from the Northern District of California Court. His double jeopardy challenge can be raised in his appeal from the Eastern District of California sentence.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.