Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edwin T. LIMBRICK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-25
Citations: 270 F. App'x 367
Docket Number: No. 06-40892
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edwin T. LIMBRICK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 270
Pages: 367–367

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edwin T. LIMBRICK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40892
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 25, 2008.
John B. Stevens, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Edwin T. Limbrick, Coleman, FL, pro se.
Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Edwin T. Limbrick, a federal prisoner, was convicted on several counts of conspiracy and obstruction of interstate commerce by attempted robbery and the use of a firearm in connection with the attempted robberies. He appeals the district court's denial of his motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that retroactive amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4 entitle him to a lower sentencing range for his offenses.
Because none of the enhancements to his two obstruction-of-commerce offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 required the involvement of a firearm, the amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4 are not relevant to Lim-brick's sentence. Compare United States v. Dixon, 273 F.3d 636, 642-44 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Limbrick has shown no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of his motion. United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir.1994).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.