USA v. Timothy Flakes, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-30015 Affirmed ] Judge: JES , Judge: JLD , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 11/16/2010 [10-30015]

USA v. Timothy Flakes, se: 10-30015 Ca Jr.

Document: 00511274831 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-30015 C o n fe r e n c e Calendar October 26, 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. T IM O T H Y FLAKES, 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 Western District of Louisiana U S D C No. 5:06-CR-50111-1

B e fo r e SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* T im o t h y Flakes, Jr., federal prisoner # 13246-035, appeals the district c o u r t's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the retroactive amendment to the crack cocaine Guideline. He argues that, notwithstanding his status as a career offender, the district c o u r t should have the authority pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), in this post-United S ta te s v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), era of advisory Guidelines, to reduce his s e n te n c e based on its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Flakes
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-30015 Document: 00511274831 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2010 No. 10-30015 a ls o argues that his career offender status did not preclude the district court fr o m reducing his sentence because his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 was a necessary starting point in the calculation of his guidelines range, and the c a r e e r offender Guideline requires a comparison between it and the offense level p r o v id e d by U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). As Flakes acknowledges, his arguments are foreclosed by circuit p r e c e d e n t . See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 790-91 (5th Cir. 2009); U n ite d States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 236-39 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 5 1 7 (2009); see also Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691-94 (2010). Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.

2