USA v. Hickman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [08-10360 Affirmed] Judge: JLW , Judge: ECP , Judge: PRO. Mandate pull date is 11/24/2010; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by USA [6083017-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by USA [6083017-3]; denying letter to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Steve Ray Hickman [6043865-3] [08-10360]

USA v. Hickman

Case: 08-10360 Document: 00511283545 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 08-10360 S u m m a r y Calendar November 3, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. S T E V E RAY HICKMAN, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas U S D C No. 1:93-CR-10-9

B e fo r e WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* S t e v e Ray Hickman, federal prisoner # 23249-077, pleaded guilty in 1993 t o distributing less than five grams of cocaine base (crack cocaine) within 1,000 fe e t of an elementary school and was sentenced to 200 months of imprisonment. This court is now presented with Hickman's appeal from the district court's d e n ia l of his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that the denial was improper because the district court erroneously b e lie v e d that it was prevented from giving Hickman the benefit of the amended
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 08-10360 Document: 00511283545 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2010 No. 08-10360 g u id e lin e s based on the fact that he was sentenced as a career offender. Hickman also challenges the validity of the career offender guidelines. H ic k m a n "was not sentenced based on a sentencing range that was s u b s e q u e n t ly lowered by the Sentencing Commission." United States v.

A n d e r s o n , 591 F.3d 789, 791 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and c it a t io n omitted). The district court was correct in concluding that Hickman was n o t eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See id. at 790-92. The instant § 3582 motion is not a proper vehicle for Hickman's argument regarding the c a r e e r offender guidelines. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5 t h Cir. 1995). T h e judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government's m o t io n for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and its alternate request for an e x t e n s io n of time in which to file a brief is DENIED. Hickman's motion for a p p o in tm e n t of counsel is also DENIED.

2