S ee U
. S. S. G
. § 2D 1. 1. 1 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 41314 Su m m ar yC al endar
U N IT E D S T A T E S O F AM E R IC A , P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee

v. A N T H O N YL E R O YA N D E R S O N , D e fe nda nt- Appe l l ant
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: A n t h on y L eroy A n derson app eal s t h e di st ri ct court’ s den i alof hi s m ot i on t o r e d u c e h i s s e n t e n c e u n d e r1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 8 2 (c )
. We a f f i r m.
I
. A n d erso n plea d edgu i l ty to c on sp i ra cyto p oss ess w i thi n ten t t o d i strib u te fi v e o rm o re g ra m s o f cra ck co ca in e , inv iola tion of 2 1 U .S .C
. § § 8 4 1 (a)(1), 841 (b) ( 1) ( B ) (i i i) , an d 84 6. A s a sentenci n g defaul t , di st ri ct courts u se § 2D 1. 1 of t he Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s t o s e t t he ba s e o f fe ns e l e ve lf

o rdr ug c r i m i nal s . The 1 United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D December

21, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 41314

S ee U .S .S .G
. § 2 D 1 .1(c ). 2

“Adefen da n ti s a career of fen der if

( 1) t h e defen da n tw as at l east ei gh t een 3 ye ar s o l d a tt he t i m e t he de fe nda ntco m m i t t e d t he i ns t anto f fe ns e o f c o nvic t i o n; ( 2) t h e i n st an tof

fen se of convi ct i on i s a f

el on y t h at i s ei t h er a c ri m e of vi ol en ce or a c on t roll ed su bstance of fen se; an d (3 ) th e d efen da n tha s atl east t w o pri or fe lo n yco n v ic tio n s o f e ith e ra c r im e o f v io le n c e o ra c o n tr o lle ds u b s ta n c e o ffe n s e .” U .S .S .G
. § 4 B 1 .1(a ). S ee U .S .S .G
. § 4 B 1 .1(b ). 4 2 gr e at er theq uant i t y o f dr ugs , t he hi ghe rt he b as e l e ve l –a nd, i n t ur n, t he 2 l on ge r the term of i m p ri son m en t. C areer of

fen ders, t h ou gh , m ay i n st eadfal lun der § 4 B1. 1 o f theG ui deli n es, w h i ch can i m pose a l en gthi er s en t en ce on rec i divi st s. Sp ecif i cal l y, if t h e base 3 l evelcal cul ated un der t h e careerof fen der provi si on exceeds th e b a se l evel
ca lc u l ated un der t h e gen eraldrugcr i m es provi si on , t h en t h e careerof fen der base l evelprevai l s. Th e ba se le v e l c al cul ati on un der t h e careerof fen der provi si on does not depen d on t h e a m o u n t of drugs i n volvedi n t h e of fen se. Rat he r , t he b as e o f

fe ns e l e ve l i s m o o r e d t o t he s t at ut o r y m ax i m um pe nalt y o f t he
u n derl yi n g cri m e. 4 In 200 3, the di st ri ctcou rtsentenced A n derson a s a c areer of fen der un der § 4B 1. 1 to 147 m on t h s i n pri son. Th e courtha d cal cul ated A n derson’ s base l evel unde rt he g e ne r aldr ug gui de l i ne § 2 D 1. 1 as 2 8 – andhi s b as e l e ve lund e rt he
career of

fen der gu i del i n e § 4B 1. 1 as 34. B ecau se th e career of fen der base l evel
e xc e e de d the ge ne r albas e l e ve l , t he ca r e e rof fe nde rse nt e nc i ng r ang e g o ve r ne d. Five year s l at er , A nder so n f i l ed a m ot i on under18 U
. S. C
. § 3582(c ) ( 2)
s e e ki ng t o r e duc e hi s s e nt e nc e –o n t he i dea t hatar e t r o ac t ives e nt e nc i ng am e ndm e nta ppli e d t o hi s c o nvic t i o n i nvo lvi ng c r ac k c o c ai ne . Sp e c i f i c all y, t he U ni t e d St at e s Se nt e nc i ng Com m i s s i o n – t ho ughAm e ndm e nt7 06 –r e duc e d theN o. 08- 41314

“T h e S en ten ci n g C om m i ssion am en d edthe gu i d eli n es a p p l i ca b l e to 5 coca in e b a s e ( i
. e., crac kcoca i n e) of fen ses byraisi n g th e q u a n tity req u i redto t r i gg e re ac h b as e o f

fe ns e l e ve l , e f

fe c t ive ly l o w e r i ng e ac h r e s pe c t i ve s e nt e nc i ng r ang e . . . . Tha ta m e ndm e ntw as t he n m ad e r e t r o ac t iveb y a s ubs e que nt a m e n d m en t t o th e g u i d eli n es.” Uni t e d St at e sv . Evan s , 20 09 W L 36 47042 , *1 n .1; 2 0 0 9 U .S
. A p p . L E X IS 2 4 3 9 9 , * 2 n .1 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). S ee Un itedS t ate s v. B oe , 11 7 F
. 3 d83 0 , 83 1 ( 5 thC i r. 19 9 7 ) (“ [W ]e no te 6 t h at th e deci si on w h et h er t o reduce a sentence i s l ef t t o t h e soun d d i scr et i on of th e tria l cou rt. T h u s, w e re v iew fora b u se of d iscr e tion on ly.”). U .S .S .G
. § 1 B 1 .10 (a)(1). 7 3 ap pl i cabl e base l evel s un der § 2D 1. 1 fo r cr a ck cocai n e of fen ses. A n derson

5
a r g u e dt h a th i s b a s e l e v e lu n d e r§ 2 D1
. 1 w o u l d ha v e b e e n 2 6 –n o t2 8
. H e c o nc e de d, ho w e ve r , t hathi s b as e l e ve lund e r§ 4B 1. 1 w o ul d no tc hang e . The di s t r i c tc o ur ts um m ar i l y de ni e d Ande r s o n’ s m o t i o n.
II. A
. A n derson u rges th at th e di st ri ctcou rt a b u sed i t s di scr et i on by n ot redu ci n g h i s sen t en ce. H e p oi n t s to U
. S
. S
. G
. § 1B 1. 10, w h i ch st ates: “ In a case 6 i n w hi c h a def

endant i s se rvi ng a t er m of i m pri so nm ent , and t he gui deli ne r ange appl i c abl e t o thatdef endanthas subs equent l y be en l ow er ed as a r es ul tof an a m e n d m e n tto th e G u id e li n e s M a n u a l . . . t h e c o u r tm a yr e d u c e t h e d e fe n d a n t ’s t erm of i m pri sonm en tas provi dedby 18 U
. S
. C
. § 3582 (c)(2 )
. ” B ecau se 7 Am e ndm e nt7 06 l o w e red t he g ui de l i ne r ang e a ppli c ab l e t o c r ac k c o c ai ne o f fe nde r s –a nd b e c aus e Ande r s o n pl e ad e d guil t y t o ac r ac k c o c ai ne v i o l at i o n – h e contends that he deserves a reducedsentence. T h e di st ri ctcourt , how ever, ha d n otd u ri n g sentenci n g ap pl i ed the crack cocai n e gu i del i n e rang e t o A n derson. I n st ead , t h e courtha d cal cul ated A n derson’ s gui del i n e ran ge pu rsuan tt o hi s c areer of fen der st atus. Th e sentence di d no tde r ivef

r o m t he a m o unto f

c r ac k c o c ai ne i nvo lve d i n hi s of fen se . TheN o. 08- 41314

Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jo n es , 328 F. A pp’ x 916, 918 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) 8 (u n p u b li sh e d). Se eUni t e d St at e sv . Tat um , 20 0 9 W L 32 4 1 5 2 6 ; 20 0 9 U
. S
. A p p . L E X IS 9 2 2 3 8 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (u n p u b lis h e d); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ja ckson , 335 F. A pp’ x 508 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (u n p u b l i s h e d); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Medloc k , 33 5 F
. A p p ’ x 4 3 0 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (u n p u b lis h e d); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hayn es , 335 F . A p p ’ x4 20 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) (u n p u b lis h e d); Un i t ed S t ate s v. B radf ord , 334 F. A pp’ x 626 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) (u n p u b lis h e d); Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ol d en , 20 0 9 W L 5 7 7 7 1 9 ; 20 0 9 U
. S
. A p p . L E X IS 4 5 8 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (u n p u b lis h e d); Un ited S ta tes v . Ca ld w ell , 325 F
. A pp’ x 383 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (u n p u b lis h e d); Uni t e dS t at e sv . I ngram , 32 5 F
. A p p ’ x 3 8 2 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (u n p u b lis h e d); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jon es , 328 F. A pp’ x 916 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) (un p u b l i sh ed ); Un i t e d St at e sv . W o o ds , 321 F. A pp’ x 344 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) (u n p u b li sh e d). U .S .S .G
. § 1 B 1 .10 (b )(2)(A). 10 S ee Un i t ed S t a t es v. B ooker , 543 U
. S
. 220 ( 200 5)
. A n derson –at l east 11 t an gen t i al l y – rai sed h i s B ookera r g u m e n t in t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee D ocket N o. 37 at11 n. 7. 4 d is t r ic t c o u r t , c o n s e q u e n t ly , d id n o t a b u s e it s d is c r e t io n in d e n y in gA n d e r s o n ’s
m o t i o n f

o rre s e nt e nc i ng, be c aus e he “ w as nots e nt e nc e d b as e d o n as e nt e nc i ng r a n g e th a t w a s s u b s e q u e n tlylo w e r e db yth e S e n te n c in gC o m m is s io n .” 8 T h e cr ack coca ine gu i del i n e am en dm en t s do not app l y t o pri soners sentenced a s c areer of fen ders. W e note th at – al t h ou gh t h i s c ou rtha s never pu bl i sheda bi n di n g deci si on on the i ssue – t h i s year w e ha ve u n i f orm l y rej ect ed argu m en t s i den t i calt o A n derson’ s i n at l east 10 p e rs u asive u n pu bl i shed deci si on s. Th e cl ai m ha s no m eriti n eit h er l aw or l ogi c.

9

B
. A n derson qu i zzi cal l y assert s – i n t h e al t erna t ive – that th e di st ri ctcourt
er r ed byt r eat i ng U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 10 as m andat or y. Sec ti on 1B1. 10 s t at es t hat

“ t h e courtshall n ot redu ce t h e . . . t erm of i m pri sonm en t
. . . t o a t erm t h at i s l ess th a n t h e m i n i m u m o f th e a m e n d e dg u id e lin e ra n g e .” H e cla im s th a t t h is 10 provi si on vi ol ates B ooker , w hi c h hel d t he s ent enc i ng gui deli nes t o b e a dvi so r y. 11N o. 08- 41314

Uni t e d St a t e sv . Evan s , 20 0 9 W L 36 4 7 0 4 2 , *1 ; 20 0 9 U
. S
. A p p . L E X IS 12 24399, *4 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) (c i t i ng Un ited S ta tes v. D o u b lin , 57 2 F
. 3 d23 5 , 23 8 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 )) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s a n dcita tion s o m itted ). Se eUni t e d St at e sv . Evan s , 2 0 0 9 W L 3 6 4 7 0 4 2 , * 2 ; 20 0 9 U
. S
. A p p . L E X IS 13 2 4 3 9 9 , * 5 -6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). T h e P u bl i c D efen der’ s bri efs i n Evansa n dinth is ca s e v ir tu a llym im ic 14 e a c h o th e r . W e d o n o t m e n tio n th is ina n e ffo r t t o cr itic iz e , a s th e la w y e r s co u ld n ot k n ow w h i ch cas e th e cou rt w ou l df irst reso lve . Inste a d , w e m ea n on l y to i l l u st rat e t h at w e ha ve al readyan sw ered t h e preci se questi on t h at A n derson 5 I ti s u n c l e a r , a s a t h r e s h o l d m a t t e r , t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e l i e d o n § 1B 1. 10, becau se no “ am en ded gu i del i n e ran ge” ap pl i es t o A n derson. R egard l ess, A nder so n’ s “ ar gum enti s f or ec l os ed by Un itedS ta tes v. D o u b lin
. . . i n wh i c h we j oin edthe n ea rl y u n a n i m ou s p ositi on of ou r si ster circuits i n h oldin g th a t B ooker does n otal t er th e m an da t ory character of
. . . § 1B 1. 10’ s li m i t ati on s on sentence
r e duc t i o ns . Thus , adi s t r i c tc o ur tc anno t r e duc e a s e nt e nc e b e l o w t he m i ni m um p r o v id e dinth e a m e n d e dg u id e lin e ra n g e .” 12
C
. L astly, A n derson u rges th at U
. S
. S .G
. § 1 B 1 .10 ’ s m a n d a to ryna t u re viol ates th e se p a ra ti on of p o w e rs d octrine
. A n d erso n didn ot p rese n t th i s ar gu m en t t o t h e di st ri ct court, bu t t ri es t o escape pl ai n error revi ew by argui n g t h at he nev er h a dach a n c e to o bje c t t o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s u m m a r yd e n ia l. A gain, iti s un cl ear h ow § 1B 1. 10 bears on t h i s case i n w h i ch n o “ am en ded g u id e lin e r a n g e ” a p p lie s to A n d e r s o n . N o tw ith s ta n d in gth is th r e s h o ld i m p ed i m en t, ci rcu i t pre ced en t w ou l df ore cl ose A n d erso n ’ s en tire a rg u m e n t – i nc l udi ng t hatpl ai n e r r o r sh ou l d no ta t t ac h. I n Uni t e d St at e sv . Evan s , t he pri so nerm ade the e xac ts am e s epar at i on o f pow ers se nt enc i ng appealas Ander s o n do e s he r e . The pr i soneri n Evans , t oo, t ri ed to avoid pl ai n err or 13 revi ew by s u ggesti n g t h at h e h ad h ad n o opp ort u n i t y t o obj ect t o t h e d i st ri ct
c o ur t ’ s s um m ary de ni alo f hi s § 3 58 2(c ) ( 2) m o t i o n. Thi s c o ur tf o und t he 14N o. 08- 41314

rai ses. Se eUni t e d St at e sv . Evan s , 2 00 9 W L 36 47 04 2, * 2- 3; 2 009 U
. S. App.

15 LE XI S 2 43 99 , * 7- 8 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 9) (i nt e r nalc i t at i o ns a nd qu ot ati o n m ar ks o m itted ). 6 pri s o ne r ’ s c o nt e nt i o ns w ant i ng; r e vi e w e d f o r pl ai n e r r o r ; and f o und non e. A n derson p resents t h e sam e case: The m and at o r y nat ur e o f § 1 B1. 10 w as a n i s s ue t hat[Ander s o n] coul d h ave an t i ci pa t ed.
. . . [ H e] coul d h ave m en t i on ed sepa rat i on o f power s i n hi s § 3 58 2(c ) ( 2) m o t i o n b r i e f, b ut , f o rw hat e ve rr e as o n, h e chose not t o. A n d be ca u se h e di d n otpresent itt o t h e di st ri ct c o ur t , w e r e vi e w itf

o rpl ai n e r r o r . . . . G ive n t he l ac k of pr e c e de nt s ugg e s t i ng a se pa r at i o n- o f

- po w e r s pr o bl e m w i t h .
. . § 1 B1. 10 , t he a lle g e de r r o rw a s n o t o b v io u s . . . . 15
III. AF F I RMED.