USA v. Gaston Charles, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-40316 Affirmed] Judge: WED , Judge: JES , Judge: LHS. Mandate pull date is 01/04/2011 [09-40316]

USA v. Gaston Charles,sJr. 09-40316 Ca e:

Document: 00511320707 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-40316 S u m m a r y Calendar December 14, 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 , versu s G A S T O N CHARLES, JR., 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 Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 3:99-CR-6-1

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:*

G a s t o n Charles, Jr., federal prisoner # 62298-079, was convicted in 2000 o f two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 09-40316 Document: 00511320707 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2010 No. 09-40316 2 1 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) and one count of possession with intent to dist r ib u t e five or more grams of cocaine base in violation of § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). He appeals the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U .S .C . § 3582(c)(2) based on amendments to the sentencing guidelines governing c r a c k cocaine. A lt h o u g h Charles acknowledges that his guideline range was ultimately d e t e r m in e d pursuant to the career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, he contends that the district court erred in deciding that he was ineligib le for relief under § 3582(c)(2). He also argues that the district court otherwise h a d the authority to resentence him in light of the advisory guideline system in e ffe c t following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005); the discretion in s e n te n c in g afforded to the district court under Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2 0 0 7 ), and Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007); and the district c o u r t's authority to grant a downward departure under the guidelines. Charles c o n t e n d s that he was also entitled to reconsideration of the § 3553(a) factors und e r the advisory guideline system and that the district court abused its discret io n by failing adequately to consider the § 3553(a) factors or to state for the r e c o r d its reasons for not considering them. T h e denial of the § 3582(c)(2) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S . Ct. 3462 (2010). Charles's guideline range was not derived from the quantity o f crack cocaine involved in his offenses, but rather from his career offender statu s under § 4B1.1. "The crack cocaine guideline amendments do not apply to p r i s o n e r s sentenced as career offenders." United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 7 8 9 , 791 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discret io n in concluding that a reduction was not permitted under § 3582(c)(2). See id. Because Charles was not eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2), the court w a s not required to reach the question whether the § 3553(a) factors warranted a reduction. See Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691-92 (2010). 2

Case: 09-40316 Document: 00511320707 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/14/2010 No. 09-40316 R e g a r d in g Charles's contention that the district court otherwise had the d is c r e t io n to resentence him to a lesser sentence, § 3582(c)(2) proceedings are not fu ll resentencings. Dillon, 130 S. Ct. at 2690-94. The principles of Booker and it s progeny do not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, and a sentencing court lacks d is c r e t io n to reduce the sentence any further than the reduction allowed under § 1B1.10. Id.; United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 1 3 0 S. Ct. 517 (2009). Charles's arguments are unavailing. T h e judgment is AFFIRMED.

3