Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-40172/USCOURTS-ca5-09-40172-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Damien Deshong Council
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. 09-40172

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

DAMIEN DESHONG COUNCIL,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CR-6-1

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Federal prisoner Damien Deshong Council was convicted by a jury of

possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute (cocaine base or

“crack”) (count one), felon in possession of a firearm (count two), and using,

carrying, or possessing a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking

crime (count three). The district court initially sentenced Council to a 420-

month term of imprisonment, but this court remanded for resentencing in the

light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). At resentencing, the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 15, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 09-40172 Document: 00511142705 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2010
No. 09-40172

2

district court imposed a 137-month term of imprisonment, representing a

significant downward variance from the sentencing guidelines range of 360

months to life imprisonment set forth in the presentence report, which the

district court adopted. 

Council filed a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 706 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). In denying the

motion, the district court noted that Council was “found to be a career offender,

which resulted in a guideline range of 360 months to life,” and that although

Council’s “base offense level was reduced, his total offense level and guideline

range remain the same.” 

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). That is, §

3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s sentence where

the defendant’s sentencing range is actually lowered by the Sentencing

Commission. See United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009). The crack cocaine guideline amendments do not

apply to defendants sentenced as a career offenders because they were not

sentenced based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the

Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th

Cir. 2009).

Council argues that he was not sentenced as a career offender at

resentencing and was, therefore, eligible for a reduced sentence under § 3582(c).

Although the district court imposed a downward variance, the record reflects

that Council’s guidelines sentencing 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

 Case: 09-40172 Document: 00511142705 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2010
No. 09-40172

3

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). He is

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

Council’s motion for a sentence reduction. See Doublin, 572 F.3d at 237.

To the extent Council 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 Council’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

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

(2007), and Booker.

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 09-40172 Document: 00511142705 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/15/2010