District Judge of the Northern District of Texas, sitting bydesignation. * Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not ** be publishe d and 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- 10177

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. JAM I E PE RK I N S , 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 t h e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 97- C R

- 55- 21

B ef ore JO L LYan d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es, an d B O Y L E , D i st ri ctJu dg e. * P E R C U R IA M: ** F o l l o w i n gh i s c o n v i c t i o n b yaj u r yo n s e v e r a ln a r c o t i c s a n df i r e a r ms cha rges, Jam i e P erki n s w as sentenced to 168 m on t h s i n pri son on each of t h ree c o unt s i nvo lvi ng c r ac k c o c ai ne , w i t h t he t e r m s t o ru n c o nc ur r e nt l y. Fo l l o w i ng a m e n d m e n ts t o t h e S e n te n c in gG u id e lin e s th a t lo w e r e dth e b a s e o ffe n s e le v e ls f or c rack cocai n e of

fen ses, t h e di st ri ctcourt gran t ed P erki n s’ s m ot i on t o reduce hi s s e nt e nc e und e r1 8 U
. S. C. § 358 2(c ) ( 2) and r e duc e d Per ki ns ’ s se nt e nc e on t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 9, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10177 Document: 00511023100 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 10177

2 c r ac k c o c ai ne c o nvic t i o ns t o 133 m o nt hs of i m pr i s o nm e nton e ac h c o unt , t o r un concu rrently w i t h each other. Perk i n s ap pea l s. T h e G overnm en tha s m ovedf or su m m a rya ffirm a n ce or , a lter n a tiv e ly, fora n ex te n sio n of tim e to file ab rie f. P e r k in s ch a lle n g e s th e lim its o n th e d is tr ic t co u r t’s d is c r e tio n s e t fo r th in U
. S

. S

. G § 1B 1. 10 a n d argu es t h e di stri ctcourtha d the au t h ori t y t o i m pose a sentence bel ow t h e m i n i m um under Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S

. 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ). T h e a r g u m e n t fa ils in th e lig h t of o u r r e c e n t d e c is io n in Un itedS ta tes v . D o u b lin , 5 7 2 F .3d 2 3 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). Per ki ns c o nt e nds t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n fail i ng t o re vi s i tt he dr ug qua nt i t y us e d t o c al c ul at e hi s g ui de l i ne s o f fe ns e l e ve la nd t he s uf f i c i e nc y o f

t he
e v id e n c e a s to ce r ta in o f th e fir e a r m s c h a r g e s . A s w e h a v e p r e v io u s lys ta te d , a § 3 5 8 2 (c) (2) m oti on “i s n ot a seco n d op p ortu n i ty to p rese n t m i ti ga ti n g factor s to t he s ent enc i ng j udge, nor i s i t a c hal l enge t o t he appr opr i at enes s of t he o r i gi nal
sen ten ce.” Un i t ed Stat es v. W h i t ebi rd , 55 F. 3d100 7, 101 1 ( 5t h C i r . 1 99 5)

. The
a p p lic a t i o n o f § 1 B 1 .1 0 is m a n d a to r y , D o u b lin , 572 F
. 3d at 238 , an d u n der § 1B

. 1. 10, t h e di st ri ctcourt , w h en reduci n g a defend a n t’ s se n t en ce un der § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ), “s h a ll le a v e a ll o th e rg u id e lin e a p p lic a tio n d e c is io n s u n a ffe c te d .” P e r k in s fu r th e ra r g u e s th a t h e h a darig h t t o b e p r e s e n t a t h is resenten cin g . B e ca u se th e d istr ict co u rt “m e re ly m o d ifi e [ d] anexi sti n g sentence” rat h er t h an i m posi n g a n ew sentence af t er t h e ori gi n als e n te n ce h ad been set
a s id e , P e r k in s w a s n o t e n tit le dto b e p r e s e n t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Patt ers on , 42 F .3 d2 4 6 , 2 4 8 -4 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). A c c o r d in g ly , th e G o v e r n m e n t’s m o tio n fo rs u m m a r ya ffir m a n c e is G RA N TE D , a nd the j udg m e nto f the di s t r i c tc o ur ti s AFF I RM ED
. The G o v e r n m e n t’s a lte r n a tiv e m o tio n fo ra n e x t e n s io n o f tim e to file ab r ie f is D E N IE D as m oo t. Case: 09-10177 Document: 00511023100 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2010