Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30213 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f –A pp el l ee, v. PE TE R P EL TI ER , D efen d a n t–A p p ell a n t.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 6: 96- C R - 60016- 1 B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * P e t e rP e lt ie r , fe d e r a l p r is o n e r#0 9 2 5 9 -0 3 5 , a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s den i al of 18 U . S . C . § 358 2(c) ( 2) rel i ef. P el t i er i s currentl y servi n g a sentence of 26 2 m o nt hs f

o rpo s s e s s i o n wi t h i nt e ntt o di s t r ibut e c o c ai ne base. In h i s ch a l l en ge to t h e d i stri ct cou rt’ s j u d gm en t, P elt i erar gues tha t Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 5 43 U . S. 2 20 ( 20 05 ) , a ppli e s t o pr o c e e di ngs i nvo lvi ng s e nt e nc i ng r e duc t i o ns und e r§ 3 58 2(c ) ( 2) a s i tdo e s i n o r i gi n als e nt e nc i ng proceedi n gs. H e argu es t h a t a lth o u gh he w as sentenced as a career of fen der United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 30213

2 u n der U . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 1, the di st ri ctcou rth ad d i scr et i on t o reduce h i s s en t en ce u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ). W e re v ie w P e ltie r ’ s a r g u m e n ts d e n o v o . S ee Un ited S ta tes v . D o u b lin , 572 F. 3d 235, 237 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) , cer t . den i ed , 130 S .C t. 5 17 (2009). Sect i on 358 2(c) ( 2) perm it s th e di scr et i on ary m odif i ca tion of a d e fen d a n t’ s s e n te n ce w h ere t he s e nt e nc i ng r ang e i s l at e rl o w e r e d b y t he Se nt e nc i ng Com m i s s i o n, “i f s uc h a r e duc t i o n i s c o ns i s t e ntw i t h t he po l i c y s t at e m e nt s i s s ue d b y t he Se nt e nc i ng C om m i ssion . ” Uni t e d St at e s v . G o nzalez - Bal de r as , 105 F . 3d 981 , 982 ( 5th C i r. 1997) . El i gibi l i t y f

orc ons i der at i on under§ 3582(c ) ( 2) i s t r i gge r ed o nl y by an a m e n d m e n t t h a t lo w e r s t h e a p p lic a b le g u id e lin e s ra n g e . S eeU . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10, cm t. n .1(A) ( 2 0 0 8 ). P el t i er’ s gui del i n es r an ge w as not derivedf rom t h e q u an t i t y of cr ack c o c ai ne i nvo lve d i n t he o f fe ns e , butr at he rf

r o m hi s c ar e e ro f

fe nde rs t at us . The di st ri ctcourtt h u s w as cor recti n con cl u di n g t h at a redu ct i on w as not perm i t t ed u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ). S ee § 1 B 1. 10, cm t . n . 1(A) . W e h ave rej ect ed P el t i er’ s B ooker a r g u m e n ts . S ee D o u b lin , 5 7 2 F .3 da t 2 3 8 -3 9 . “ [ T] he co nc e r ns ati s s ue i n B ooker d o no t a p p l y inan 18 U . S . C . § 35 8 2 (c) (2) p roce ed i n g.” I d. a t2 38 . Al t ho ught he G ui del i nes m ustbe t r eat ed as advi so r y i n an or i gi nal sen te nci ng pr oc ee di ng, B ookerdoe s notpr eve ntC ongr es s f r om i nco r por at i ng a G ui deli ne pr ovi si on “ as a m ean s of

def i n i n g an d l i m i t i n g a dis t ri ctcourt ’ s authori t y t o reduce a sentence u n d er § 3 5 8 2 (c) . ” I

d. a t 2 3 9 (i n te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s a n dcita tion om itted ). AF F I RMED.