Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Christopher THOMPSON, also known as Chris Thompson, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-08
Citations: 395 F. App'x 781
Docket Number: No. 09-5272-cr
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Christopher THOMPSON, also known as Chris Thompson, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges, and EDWARD R. KORMAN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 395
Pages: 781–782

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Christopher THOMPSON, also known as Chris Thompson, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-5272-cr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Oct. 8, 2010.
Maryanne E. Kampmann, Stetler, Allen & Kampmann, Burlington, VT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Barbara A. Masterson, Gregory L. Waples, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Tristram J. Coffin, United States Attorney for the District of Vermont, Burlington, VT, for Appellee.
PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges, and EDWARD R. KORMAN, District Judge.
The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant Christopher Thompson appeals from a judgment of conviction entered December 11, 2009 (Murtha, J.), following a guilty plea, convicting Thompson of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, and sentencing him principally to five years' imprisonment pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)'s mandatory minimum. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.
On appeal, Thompson argues that the district court erred in concluding that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)'s direction to "impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary" cannot displace an applicable mandatory minimum, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). As we noted in United States v. Samas, 561 F.3d 108, 110 (2d Cir.2009), we have "rejected the argument that § 3553(a) conflicts with statutory minimum sentences." "[A] district court must impose a statutorily mandated sentence even if the court would reach a different determination if it considered only § 3553(a)." Id. We have also rejected the argument that Booker dictates a different result. See United States v. Williams, 347 Fed.Appx. 710, 711 (2d Cir.2009). Thus, the district court correctly concluded that the five-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) applies.
We have reviewed Thompson's remaining arguments and conclude that they lack merit. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.