Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfred LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-21
Citations: 362 F. App'x 402
Docket Number: No. 08-20440
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee v. Alfred LEWIS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 402–403

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee v. Alfred LEWIS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-20440
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 21, 2010.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alfred Lewis, federal prisoner # 72777-079, appeals the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his concurrent 262-month sentences for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing cocaine base and distribution of cocaine base. Lewis challenges the propriety of his sentencing as a career offender, and he also argues that § 3582(c)(2) is applicable to his sentences based upon the retroactive amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines.
Lewis may not use a § 3582(c)(2) motion to challenge 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). Further, the district court did not err in denying relief because "[t]he crack cocaine guideline amendments do not apply to prisoners sentenced as career offenders." United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant lo 5th Cut. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.