Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-08-41267/USCOURTS-ca5-08-41267-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Douglas Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-41267

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DOUGLAS JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:01-CR-166-1

Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Douglas Johnson, federal prisoner # 09173-078, appeals the district court’s

denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based

Amendment 706 to the cocaine base (crack cocaine) Sentencing Guidelines.

Johnson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more

of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), but he was sentenced as a

career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 19, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 08-41267 Document: 00511084673 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2010
No. 08-41267

2

The court has the discretion to reduce a sentence “in the case of a

defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a

sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing

Commission . . . if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). “The crack

cocaine guideline amendments do not apply to prisoners sentenced as career

offenders.” United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir. 2009).

Johnson asserts that, although he was designated as a career offender, the

district court downwardly departed so that he was “ultimately” sentenced based

on the crack cocaine guidelines and, thus, he is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2)

reduction. This assertion is wholly unsupported by the record. The district

court did not downwardly depart to a sentence within the crack cocaine

guidelines range, and there is no indication in the record that the district court

based its departure sentence on this otherwise applicable range.

Although the district court departed from the career offender guidelines

range, Johnson’s guidelines range was derived from his career offender status

and not from the quantity of crack cocaine involved in the offense. Accordingly,

he was not sentenced “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been

lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). Thus, he was ineligible

for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction. See Anderson, 591 F.3d at 791. The

district court did not err or otherwise abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s

motion for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009).

To the extent Johnson argues that the application of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 is

not mandatory, this argument is foreclosed. See id. at 238. Because the district

court simply denied the motion and did not consider any sentence reduction, we

do not address Johnson’s arguments that the district court erred in not

considering the full panoply of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in determining his

 Case: 08-41267 Document: 00511084673 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2010
No. 08-41267

3

new, reduced sentence in light of Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85

(2007), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 08-41267 Document: 00511084673 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/19/2010