IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10622

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

WESLEY JAMES WILSON, also known as Wes,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:92-CR-141-6

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Wesley James Wilson, federal prisoner # 23795-077, appeals the district

court’s denial of his motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his

sentence for drug trafficking conspiracy, possession with intent to manufacture

and distribute cocaine base, and money laundering. Wilson also moves to amend

his appellate brief. To the extent that the motion to amend constitutes Wilson’s

amended brief, the motion is granted; to the extent that the motion seeks

permission to file an additional brief or memorandum of law, the motion is

denied.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 4, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 08-10622 Document: 00511285025 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2010
No. 08-10622

Wilson argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2)

based on Amendments 706 and 711 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

However, because he was held accountable for more than 4.5 kilograms of

cocaine base, Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, as amended by

Amendment 711, both of which modified the sentencing ranges applicable to

crack cocaine offenses, did not change his sentencing range.

U.S.S.G.§ 2D1.1(c)(1); see also id. cmt. n.10(D)(ii).

Wilson also argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under

§ 3582(c)(2) based on the district court’s incorrect drug quantity determination

and the fact that the jury did not make a finding concerning the drug quantity

attributed to him at sentencing. However, a motion under § 3582(c)(2) “is not a

second opportunity to present mitigating factors to the sentencing judge, nor is

it a challenge to the appropriateness of the original sentence.” United States v.

Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, this court has

recognized that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), did not alter the

mandatory character of § 1B1.10’s limitations on sentence reductions. United

States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009).

Therefore, these claims are not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See

Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1011; United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir.

2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2010).

In light of the foregoing, Russell has not shown that the district court

abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See id. at 672.

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO AMEND BRIEF GRANTED TO EXTENT

THAT MOTION CONSTITUTES AMENDED BRIEF AND DENIED TO

EXTENT THAT MOTION SEEKS PERMISSION TO FILE NEW BRIEF OR

MEMORANDUM OF LAW.

2

Case: 08-10622 Document: 00511285025 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2010