Case ID: f-appx_352/html/0954-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ronnie Lee HAMPTON, also known as Rabbit, also known as Robert Hampton, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-40052
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 9, 2009.
    Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Allen Harvey Hurst, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Frank Warren Henderson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender’s Office, Beaumont, TX, George Patrick Black, Amy R. Blalock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender’s Office, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Lee Hampton, federal prisoner # 10636-078, filed a motion for a reduced sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in which he sought a reduction in his offense level based on Amendment 706 to the crack cocaine Guidelines. Hampton appeals the district court’s denial of that motion. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of túne to file a brief on the merits.

Hampton argues that the district court erred in concluding that it did not have the discretion to grant him a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). The district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence ordinarily is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, but a district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir.2009). Hampton’s Guideline range was derived not from the quantity of crack cocaine involved in the offense, but rather from his career offender status. PSR ¶ 25. Accordingly, he was not sentenced “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission” for purposes of § 3582(c)(2), and that section does not apply. Hampton’s argument that the district court had the discretion to reduce his sentence under § 3582 in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is unavailing because “the concerns at issue in Booker do not apply in an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) proceeding.” Doublin, 572 F.3d at 238.

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the Government’s motion for an extension of time is DENIED. AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.