Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jacob Charles BLACK, also known as Jacob Carter, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-20
Citations: 376 F. App'x 363
Docket Number: No. 09-30704
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jacob Charles BLACK, also known as Jacob Carter, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 363–364

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jacob Charles BLACK, also known as Jacob Carter, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30704
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 20, 2010.
Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Carol B. White-hurst, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jacob Charles Black, federal prisoner # 13500-179, appeals the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on the amendments to the crack cocaine Guideline. He argues that the district court erred and abused its discretion by denying his motion because he would not be considered a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 if he were resentenced now because his prior conviction for delivery of a controlled substance is no longer considered a predicate felony under § 4B1.1. He asserts that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), should apply in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, allowing the district court to recalculate the guidelines range and to determine an appropriate sentence based upon the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Black acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed, but he raises it to preserve it for further review. He also argues that he is eligible for relief because, in the determination that he should be sentenced as a career offender, the offense level under § 4B1.1 was compared to the offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, and therefore his sentence is based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered within the meaning of § 3582(c)(2).
Black may not use a § 3582(c)(2) motion to relitigate whether he is a career offender under § 4B1.1. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir.1995). As he acknowledges, his assertion that Booker should apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings is foreclosed. See United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 236-39 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by 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 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.