Case ID: f-appx_231/html/0215-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America v. Derrick WILLIAMS, Appellant.
    No. 07-1472.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 July 19, 2007.
    Filed Aug. 17, 2007.
    Francis C. Barbieri, Jr., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America.
    Derrick Williams, White Deer, PA, pro se.
    Before: RENDELL, SMITH and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Derrick Williams appeals the District Court’s orders denying his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and his motion for reconsideration. In 1995, Williams pled guilty to violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 924 in connection with several drug trafficking arrests. He was sentenced as a career offender to 270 months in prison. After several unsuccessful challenges to his conviction and sentence, Williams filed the instant motion for modification of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The District Court denied the motion as well as Williams’s motion for reconsideration. Williams filed a timely notice of appeal.

Williams argues that his sentence should be modified based on Amendment 591 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Amendment 591 changed the language of U.S.S.G. §§ lBl.l(a) and lB1.2(a) which are used to determine the guideline to be applied to the offense of conviction. See United States v. Diaz, 245 F.3d 294, 301-02 (3d Cir.2001). We agree with the District Court that Amendment 591 is not applicable to Williams because he was sentenced as a career offender. The offense level and criminal history for a career offender are determined using U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.