Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-21
Citations: 78 F. App'x 382
Docket Number: No. 03-50518
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 382–382

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-50518.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 21, 2003.
Joseph H Gay, Jr, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
William Young, US Penitentiary Beaumont, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
William Young, federal prisoner number 56038-080, appeals the denial of his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 121 S.Ct. 1276, 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001), clarified an amendment to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment, (n.3). He argues that under the clarification he would not have been eligible for the sentencing enhancement he received under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), and its corresponding guideline provision at U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b)(3).
The amendment that Young argues was clarified by Buford is Amendment 382, effective November 1,1991, which changed the language in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3). Amendment 382 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c), and therefore may not be applied retroactively on Young's motion. See United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 218 (5th Cir.1996). The denial of Young's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion was not an abuse of the district court's discretion. Its order is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.