Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joseph THOMAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-18
Citations: 365 F. App'x 596
Docket Number: No. 09-40539
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joseph THOMAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 365
Pages: 596–597

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joseph THOMAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-40539
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 2010.
Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joseph Thomas, Jr., Pollock, LA, pro se.
Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Thomas, Jr., federal prisoner #04789-078, appeals the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on the retroactive amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines. The Government moves for summary affirmance, arguing that Thomas was ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2) because he was sentenced as a career offender, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and not under the crack guidelines.
Because Thomas's guideline range was not derived from the quantity of crack cocaine involved in the offense, but rather from his career offender status, the district court was correct in concluding that Thomas was not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). Thomas may not use a § 3582(c)(2) motion as a challenge to the appropriateness of the district court's application of a career offender enhancement in its calculation of his original sentences. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, the Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government's alternative motion for an extension of time in which to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.