Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David Earl KATES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-26
Citations: 350 F. App'x 902
Docket Number: No. 09-10045
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David Earl KATES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, STEWART and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 350
Pages: 902–903

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David Earl KATES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10045
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 26, 2009.
Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, Bonita L. Gunden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Amarillo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, STEWART and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David Earl Kates, federal prisoner # 30428-077, appeals the district court's order denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Kates was convicted by a jury of posses sion with intent to distribute cocaine base. Kates argues that he is entitled to have his sentence reduced pursuant to Amendment 709, which addressed two areas of the Guidelines' criminal history rules. Kates does not dispute that the amendment went into effect after he was sentenced and that it is not listed by the Sentencing Commission's policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 as a guideline amendment that applies retroactively. He argues, however, that the district court was not limited by the Guidelines' list of retroactively applicable amendments because, after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the Guidelines are advisory.
We review the district court's denial of Kates's § 3582(c) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 28-29 (5th Cir.1994). Amendment 709, on which Kates relies for his § 3582(c) motion, is not listed as an amendment covered by the policy statement in § 1B1.10. See § lB1.10(c). Therefore, the plain language of § 3582(c) dictated that the district court was not authorized to reduce a sentence based on Amendment 709 because that would be inconsistent with Sentencing Commission policy. See § 1B.10, comment, (n. 1); § 3582(c)(2). Moreover, this court has held that "Booker does not alter the mandatory character of § lBl.lO's limitations on sentence reductions." United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir.2009). Kates has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c) motion.
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.