Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Douglas JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-09
Citations: 667 F. App'x 869
Docket Number: No. 16-10033 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Douglas JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 869–870

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Douglas JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-10033 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 08/09/2016
Douglas Jackson, Pro Se
Before BARKSDALE, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Jackson, federal prisoner # 34028-177, proceeding pro se on appeal from the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction, pleaded guilty, with a written plea agreement, to possession, with intent to distribute, 500 grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Although Jackson was determined to be a career offender, the court calculated his sentencing range based on his offense level, under Guideline § 2D1.1, because it was higher than the career-offender offense level, under Guideline § 4B1.1. Prior to the motion at issue, Jackson successfully moved to reduce his sentence, lowering his base offense level to 34, under § 2D1.1, the same as his career-offender offense level, under § 4B1.1.
The district court denied the instant 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion pursuant to Amendment 782, concluding Jackson was ineligible for the reduction. In challenging that denial and his motion for reconsideration, Jackson asserts he is eligible for a sentence reduction based on that amendment.
The court's authority to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed de novo. United States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010). Section 3582(c)(2) allows a district court to reduce a defendant's sentence if he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that subsequently was lowered by an amendment to the advisory Guidelines. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009). Amendment 782, which is retroactive, reduced the base-offense levels for crack-cocaine offenses. See U.S.S.G., Supp. to App. C., Amends. 782, 788.
Nevertheless, that Jackson's offense level has been reduced, alone, does not entitle him to a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Banks, 770 F.3d 346, 349 (5th Cir. 2014). Although Amendment 782 would reduce Jackson's § 2D1.1 offense level, the court's determining it would use Jackson's career-offender offense level of 34, under § 4B1.1(b), because it is higher than that produced by § 2D1.1 following the amendment, was proper. Id. at 348-49. Jackson's sentencing range remains unchanged by the amendment; therefore, the court correctly determined it lacked authority under § 3582(c)(2) to lower his sentence. See id.
AFFIRMED.
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.