Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brenda Lee FORD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-13
Citations: 324 F. App'x 438
Docket Number: No. 08-10745
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brenda Lee FORD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brenda Lee FORD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10745
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 13, 2009.
Angie Lee Henson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brenda Lee Ford, Federal Medical Center, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Brenda Lee Ford, federal prisoner # 26255-077, was sentenced to a 324-month term of imprisonment following a 1995 conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Based on Ford's motion to reduce her sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) due to the crack cocaine amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court reduced the aggregate sentence of 324 months to 262 months in prison.
On June 24, 2008, Ford filed a pro se "motion to revisit sentencing in the interest of justice under newly defined law of the § U.S.S.G." Ford asserted that her prior convictions did not qualify her as a career offender. The district court denied the motion as an unauthorized motion. On appeal, Ford has not shown a jurisdictional basis for her motion to revisit. Because Ford has appealed an unauthorized motion, we dismiss the appeal on the basis that the district court lacked jurisdiction. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994).
DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.