USA v. Thomas

Filing 511131107

USA v. Thomas

Doc. 511131107

Case: 08-41090

Document: 00511131107

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/03/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 08-41090 S u m m a r y Calendar June 3, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N I T E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in tiff-A p p e lle e v. N A T H A N IE L HOWARD THOMAS, 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 Eastern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:98-CR-14-27

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* N a th a n ie l Howard Thomas, federal prisoner # 07052-078, appeals the d is tr ic t court's judgment of October 6, 2008, denying his motion to reduce his s e n te n c e pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on U.S.S.G. App. C, A m e n d m e n t 591 (Nov. 2000). Thomas argues that, in light of United States v. B o o k e r , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district court was authorized to consider the r e d u c e d offense level under the amendment and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in considering the motion. This issue is foreclosed by this court's decisions in
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 08-41090

Document: 00511131107 Page: 2 No. 08-41090

Date Filed: 06/03/2010

U n ited States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 236-39 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 5 1 7 (2009), and United States v. Evans, 587 F. 3d 667, 670-71 (5th Cir. 2009), p e titio n for cert. filed (Jan. 28, 2010) (No. 09-8939). On appeal, Thomas does not address the denial of relief based on the s p e c ific provisions of Amendment 591. When an appellant fails to identify any e r r o r in the district court's analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not a p p e a le d that issue. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 7 4 8 (5th Cir. 1987). Arguments must be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v . Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1983). Any claim based on Amendment 5 9 1 must be deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. T h e judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government's m o t io n s are DENIED.

2