Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Timmie FORD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-05
Citations: 352 F. App'x 916
Docket Number: No. 08-30995
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Timmie FORD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 352
Pages: 916–917

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Timmie FORD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30995
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 5, 2009.
Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Betty Lee Marak, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Timmie Ford, federal prisoner # 09615-035, filed a motion for a reduced sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in which he sought a sentence reduction based on Amendment 706 to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the base offense level for most crack cocaine offenses. Ford appeals the district court's denial of that motion.
Ford's argument that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) applies in the context of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings is unavailing in light of United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238-39 (5th Cir.2009). Also, Ford's sentence was based upon the career offender guideline. Because Ford's guidelines range was not derived from the quantity of crack cocaine involved in the offense, Ford was not sentenced based on a sentencing range that was lowered by the Sentencing Commission through Amendment 706. The district court therefore did not err in denying Ford's § 3582(c)(2) motion. See § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.