USA v. Jones

Filing 920100422

Case: 08-31190

Document: 00511085568

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/20/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 08-31190 C o n fe r e n c e Calendar April 20, 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. W A R R E N D JONES, 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 Western District of Louisiana U S D C No. 3:98-CR-30019-1

B e fo r e SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* W a r r e n D. Jones, federal prisoner # 09940-035, appeals the denial of his 1 8 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on the amendments t o the crack cocaine Guideline. Although the district court reduced Jones's s e n te n c e , the court denied Jones's request to reduce his sentence below the a m e n d e d guidelines range. Jones argues that, pursuant to United States v. B o o k e r , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district court had the discretion to depart from t h e amended guidelines range. He further argues that 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) does
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Case: 08-31190

Document: 00511085568 Page: 2 No. 08-31190

Date Filed: 04/20/2010

n o t grant the Sentencing Commission the authority to bind the district court's d is c r e t io n in § 3582 cases. W e review a district court's decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion, and its interpretation of the Sentencing G u id e lin e s is reviewed de novo. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th C ir . ) , cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009). Booker is inapplicable to sentence r e d u c t io n s under § 3582(c)(2), and a district court cannot reduce a sentence b e lo w the minimum provided in the amended guidelines range. Id. at 238. Insofar as Jones challenges the reasonableness of his sentence at the bottom of t h e recalculated guidelines range, his argument is without merit. See United S ta te s v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 670-72 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 2 8 , 2010) (No. 09-8939). "The Booker reasonableness standard does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings." Id. at 672. AFFIRMED.

2