USA v. Fred Flores, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-40083 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: ECP , Judge: PRO Mandate pull date is 11/09/2010; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [6558637-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [6558637-3] [10-40083]

USA v. Fred Flores, III

Doc. 0

Case: 10-40083

Document: 00511266915

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/19/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-40083 S u m m a r y Calendar October 19, 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. F R E D FLORES, III, 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. 4:05-CR-96-1

B e fo r e WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t Fred Flores, III, federal prisoner # 12212-078, a p p e a ls the district court's denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on the recent amendments to the crack cocaine p r o v is io n s of the Sentencing Guidelines. The government has filed a motion for s u m m a r y affirmance of the district court's judgment or, in the alternative, for a n extension of time to file a brief on the merits. Flores's sentencing range was n o t determined under the crack cocaine provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-40083

Document: 00511266915 Page: 2 No. 10-40083

Date Filed: 10/19/2010

A c c o r d in g ly , he is not eligible for a reduced sentence. See § 3582(c); U.S.S.G. § 1 B 1 .1 0 (a )(2 ) & cmt. (n.1(A)). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and its a lt e r n a t iv e motion for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary.

2