Case ID: f-appx_202/html/0831-01.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. Christopher Sean CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-50167
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 24, 2006.
    
      Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Christopher Sean Carter, El Reno, OK, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Christopher Sean Carter, federal prisoner # 68711-080, pleaded guilty in 1996 to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Carter now appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion.

Carter’s contention that his sentence is subject to modification in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is without merit. Section 3582(c)(2) is inapplicable because Booker did not involve a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 28 (5th Cir.1994); § 3582(c)(2).

With respect to Carter’s assertion that he is entitled to relief under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 591 to the Guidelines, Carter did not raise this argument in the district court. Accordingly, we need not consider it. See United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 431 (5th Cir.1994). Regardless, Carter’s argument is without merit. Amendment 591 is not relevant to either the determination of a specific offense level within the applicable guideline section or the consideration of relevant conduct. See U.S.S.G.App. C, Amendment 591 (Nov.2000). Therefore, the district court was not prohibited from considering additional amounts of drugs not included in the charged offense.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.