USA v. Lewis
Filing
920100121
Case: 08-20440
Document: 00511009880
Page: 1
Date Filed: 01/21/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
No. 08-20440 Summary Calendar January 21, 2010 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. ALFRED LEWIS, Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-116-6
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Alfred Lewis, federal prisoner #72777-079, appeals the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his concurrent 262-month sentences for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing cocaine base and distribution of cocaine base. Lewis
challenges the propriety of his sentencing as a career offender, and he also
Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
*
Case: 08-20440
Document: 00511009880 Page: 2 No. 08-20440
Date Filed: 01/21/2010
argues that § 3582(c)(2) is applicable to his sentences based upon the retroactive amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines. Lewis may not use a § 3582(c)(2) motion to challenge the appropriateness of the district court's application of a career offender enhancement in its calculation of his original sentences. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, the district court did not err in denying relief because "[t]he crack cocaine guideline amendments do not apply to prisoners sentenced as career offenders." United States v. Anderson, -- F.3d --, No. 08-41314, 2009 WL 4895261, *2 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2009). AFFIRMED.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?