Case ID: f-appx_403/html/0934-01.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. Craig Lamario MOSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-40979
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 8, 2010.
    Heather Harris Rattan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    
      Craig Lamario Mosley, Forrest City, AR, pro se.
    Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Craig Lamario Mosley, federal prisoner #21362-009, was convicted of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute and received the statutory minimum sentence of 240 months. He now appeals the district court’s 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 crack cocaine. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a brief.

Because Mosley was sentenced to a mandatory statutory minimum, the district court lacked authority to grant a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575, 579-81 (5th Cir.2010); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment (n. 1(A)). Mosley’s reliance on the principles set forth in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is without merit; Booker is inapplicable to a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691-94, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.