IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-11024

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MAURICE ANDERSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-64-1

Before KING, STEWART and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Maurice Anderson, federal prisoner # 34064-177, appeals from the district

court’s denial of his motion seeking a reduction in his sentence pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Using his original § 3582(c)(2) motion as his appellate brief, Anderson cites

Guideline Amendments 485, 487, 493, and 709. However, these amendments

are not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) as any of the amendments that could result

in a § 3582(c)(2) sentence modification. See § 1B1.10(a), (c).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 17, 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: 09-11024 Document: 00511145512 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2010
No. 09-11024

To the extent that Anderson’s brief is liberally construed to contend that

his sentence should be reduced based on Amendment 706, Anderson is ineligible

for relief on this basis because his offense level was based on his responsibility

for more than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. See U.S.S.G. Supp. to App. C,

Amend. 706; U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.10(D)(ii)(I)).

Anderson also argues that his sentence should be reduced under Guideline

Amendments 484, 506, and 599. However, all of these amendments were

effective long before Anderson’s offense conduct occurred in 2006. See

Amendment 484, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, App. C., Vol. 1, pp. 379-80

(2003) (noting November 1, 1993, effective date); Amendment 506, U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual, App. C., Vol. 1, pp. 417-18 (2003) (noting

November 1, 1994, effective date); Amendment 599, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual, App. C., Vol. 2, pp. 69-71 (2003) (noting November 1, 2000, effective

date).

To the extent that Anderson’s brief is liberally construed to raise

arguments concerning his lack of notice for an aggravated felony enhancement,

the use of a magistrate judge in his criminal proceedings, his innocence of the

offense, the constitutionality of his sentence under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and the

treatment of § 1B1.10 as mandatory after Booker, 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 Booker did not alter the mandatory character of

§ 1B1.10’s limitations on sentence reductions. See 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 motion. See Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1011;

United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed

(Jan. 28, 2010) (No. 09-8939).

2

Case: 09-11024 Document: 00511145512 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2010
No. 09-11024

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

abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Evans, 587 F.3d at

672.

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 09-11024 Document: 00511145512 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/17/2010