USA v. Landrio

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [08-41220 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: ECP , Judge: PRO Mandate pull date is 10/29/2010; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by USA [6198635-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by USA [6198635-3] [08-41220]

USA v. Landrio

Doc. 0

Case: 08-41220

Document: 00511258405

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/08/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 08-41220 S u m m a r y Calendar October 8, 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. J O H N LANDRIO, 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. 1:01-CR-217-ALL

B e fo r e WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* J o h n Landrio, federal prisoner # 09217-078, was convicted of one count of p o s s e s s io n of five or more grams of crack cocaine with intent to distribute and w a s sentenced to serve 188 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised r e le a s e . This court is now presented with Landrio's appeal from the district c o u r t's denial of his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that the denial was improper because he was not s e n te n c e d as a career offender and because the district court gave no reasons for
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 08-41220

Document: 00511258405 Page: 2 No. 08-41220

Date Filed: 10/08/2010

t h e denial. Alternatively, he contends that he did not qualify for sentencing as a career offender. None of Landrio's arguments suffice to show that the district court abused it s discretion in connection with its denial of his § 3582(c) motion. United States v . Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2010). Insofar as Landrio contends that he was not sentenced as a career offender, our r e v ie w of the record and his arguments refutes this assertion. T h e district court was under no obligation to give reasons to support its d e n ia l of the motion. United States v. Cooley, 590 F.3d 293, 298 (5th Cir. 2009). Consequently, Landrio is not entitled to relief because the district court gave no r e a s o n s for denying his motion. Finally, the instant § 3582 motion is not a p r o p e r vehicle for Landrio's argument that he does not qualify for sentencing as a career offender. United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th 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.

2