USA v. Lee Nation, Jr.

Filing

USA v. Lee Nation, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 10-30112

Document: 00511205745

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/17/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-30112 C o n fe r e n c e Calendar August 17, 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. L E E DELL NATION, JR., also known as Pop, also known as Doom, 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. 3:02-CR-30043-1

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* L e e Dell Nation, Jr., federal prisoner # 11578-035, appeals the district c o u r t's imposition of a reduced sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), b a s e d on the amendments to the Guideline governing cocaine base. Although t h e district court reduced Nation's sentence from 235 months to 188 months, at t h e bottom of the newly applicable guidelines range, Nation argues that, p u r s u a n t to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district court had t h e discretion to depart from the amended guidelines range. He further argues
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-30112

Document: 00511205745 Page: 2 No. 10-30112

Date Filed: 08/17/2010

t h a t 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) does not grant the Sentencing Commission authority to b in d the district court's discretion in § 3582(c)(2) 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 may not reduce a sentence b e lo w the minimum provided in the amended guidelines range. Id. at 238. Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2