Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rebecca Jean STEWART, also known as Rebecca Jean Stewart, also known as Cynthia Stewart, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-24
Citations: 203 F. App'x 588
Docket Number: No. 05-51317
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rebecca Jean STEWART, also known as Rebecca Jean Stewart, also known as Cynthia Stewart, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: . Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 588–589

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rebecca Jean STEWART, also known as Rebecca Jean Stewart, also known as Cynthia Stewart, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-51317
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2006.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rebecca Jean Stewart, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
. Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rebecca Jean Stewart, federal prisoner #34290-080, appeals the district court's denial of her motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Section 3582(c)(2) allows the court to modify a term of imprisonment "in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the sentencing commission." § 3582(c)(2).
Amendment 505, effective November 1, 1994, amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to estab lish level 38 as the highest category of the drug quantity table. U.S.S.G., App. C, Amend. 505. Stewart was sentenced after amendment 505 took effect. Her argument is thus not one cognizable under § 3582. See United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir.1994).
The district court did not err in denying Stewart's § 3582(c) motion. Because this issue had already been decided adversely to Stewart in the denial of her prior § 3582(c) motion, this appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Stewart is warned that future challenges to her sentence under amendment 505 will invite the imposition of sanctions against her. Those sanctions could include a monetary penalty and/or limitations on her ability to challenge her sentence.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
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.