### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 30252 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. EDDIE KENDRICKS JACKSON, also known as Mookie, also known as Mook Dog , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:17

- CR

- 172

- 1

Before B ARKSDALE, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Eddie Kendricks Jackson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine , in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846

. The district court sentenced him to, inter alia , 300

- mon ths’ imprisonment,

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4

. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 3, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-30252 Document: 00515221409 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2019No. 19

- 30252

2 below the advisory Sentencing G uidelines range of 324

- to 405

- months ’ imprisonment

. Challenging only his sentence, Jackson asserts primarily that the court erred by treating his convictions at age 17 as predicate offenses in determinin g he was a career offender under the Guidelines , despite the Louisiana legislature ’s having recently changed the age at which an offender must be considered an adult to 18

- years - old

. (As discussed infra , his other sentencing issue is waived.) Although po st

- Booker , the Guidelines are advisory only, the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 4 6, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists , a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse

of

- discretion standard. Id . at 51; United States v. Delgado

- Martinez , 564 F.3d 750, 751

– 53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo ; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g. , United States v. Cisneros

- Gutierrez , 51 7 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008)

.

“ The Guidelines defi ne a ‘ career offender ’ as an offender with at least two prior felony convictions for violent or drug

- related crimes. ” Buford v. United States , 532 U.S. 59, 60 (2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “To serve as a predicate for the career

- offender enhancement, a conviction must be an adult conviction.” United States v. Bams , 858 F.3d 937, 947 (5th Cir. 2017) (cit ation omitted )

. A conviction obtained at age 17 “is an adult conviction if it is classified as an adult conviction under the law s of the jurisdiction in which the defendant was convicted”

. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 cmt. n.1. Case: 19-30252 Document: 00515221409 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2019No. 19

- 30252

3 Jackson does not dispute that his predicate convictions were classified as adult convictions under Louisiana law

. H e instead a sserts the S tate has since raised the age for adult convictions. He speculates that, because the Supreme Court made retroactiv e its holding s that it is unconstitutional to execut e an individual who was under 18

- years - old at the time he committed a capital crime, Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551 , 578

– 79 (200 5 ) , and to impose a mandatory sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders , Montgomery v. Louisiana , 136 S. Ct. 718, 732 (2016) , Louisiana will make its new law retroactive. The Louisiana ac t , however, was written prospectively, defining a child as “any person under the age of twenty

- one
. . . who commits a delinquent act” (a) before turning 17 ; (b) “on or after March 1, 2019, when the act is not a crime of violence

. . . and occurs before the person attains eighteen years of age” ; and (c) “on or after July 1, 2020, and before the person attain s eighteen years of
ag e”

. La. Child. Code Ann. art. 804 (1) (2018) . Under Louisiana law, “t he legislature ’ s intent as to the retroactive application of a statute must be present in the wording of the Act ”

. Sher v. Lafayette Ins. Co ., 988 So. 2d 186, 200 (La. 2008) (citations omitted) . Nothing in the Louisiana act suggests it is retroactive. Jackson , therefore, has not demonstrated the district court misapplied the Guidelines in determining he was a career offender

. Relying on a district

- court decis ion from another circuit, which was rendered before his original brief on appeal was filed, Jackson assert s in his reply brief that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because Guideline § 2D1.1(c) , pertaining to controlled substances and quantity , o veremphasize s purity and amount of methamphetamine and do es not accurately account for his actual role in the conspiracy. Jackson ’s not rais ing this issue until his reply Case: 19-30252 Document: 00515221409 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/03/2019No. 19

- 30252

4 brief results in its being waived. See United States v. Clay , 921 F.3d 550, 557 n.2 (5th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted)

. AFFIRMED. Case: 19-30252 Document: 00515221409 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/03/2019