Case ID: f-appx_334/html/0713-01.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. Derrick DeCarlo PARKER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-30696
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 20, 2009.
    Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Betty Lee Marak, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Derrick DeCarlo Parker, federal prisoner # 10876-035, appeals the sentence imposed following the district court’s granting of his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Parker argues that the holding in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), applies in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings and that the district court abused its discretion by not imposing a sentence below the amended guidelines sentence range. Parker also argues that the district court committed procedural error by not giving reasons for not granting a greater sentence reduction and by not making an individualized sentencing determination.

Parker’s assertions that Booker applies in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings and that the district court abused its discretion by not imposing a sentence below the amended guidelines sentence range are foreclosed by United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 236-39 (5th Cir.2009), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 21, 2009) (No. 09-6657). As the district court sentenced Parker to the lowest sentence within the amended guidelines sentence range and did not have authority to lower Parker’s sentence further, see id., any procedural error alleged by Parker was harmless. See United States v. Sandle, 123 F.3d 809, 812-13 (5th Cir.1997).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.