Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul Dana WILLIAMS, also known as Paul William Dana, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-20
Citations: 185 F. App'x 404
Docket Number: No. 05-41103
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul Dana WILLIAMS, also known as Paul William Dana, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 404–405

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul Dana WILLIAMS, also known as Paul William Dana, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41103
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 20, 2006.
Paul Dana Williams, Florence, CO, pro se.
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Paul Dana Williams, federal prisoner # 07339-051, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion for modification of sentence. He argues that retroactive Amendments 433, 506, and 591 to the Sentencing Guidelines coupled with the holding of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), affected the method by which U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (Career Offender) was applied to his kidnapping and firearms convictions.
Our review of Williams's sentencing reveals that none of the cited amendments have any application to the sentence the district court imposed. To the extent that Williams invokes Booker, such an argument is not cognizable in the context of a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion because it is not based on a retroactive amendment to the Guidelines. See United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir.1994). In light of the foregoing, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir.1994).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.