Case ID: f-appx_363/html/0489-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darcy Ira THIGPEN, AKA Little Dee, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50502.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 26, 2010.
    
      April Anita Christine, Esquire, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Elizabeth Newman, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Darcy Ira Thigpen appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the retroactive application of Amendment 706 to the Sentence Guidelines provisions governing crack cocaine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Thigpen contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 706 because his sentence was based, in part, on a sentencing range calculated under the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. This contention fails because Thigpen qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Because the district court sentenced Thigpen based on a sentencing range calculated under § 4B1.1, he is not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 706. See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.