Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry YETT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-21
Citations: 110 F. App'x 426
Docket Number: No. 04-50598
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry YETT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 110
Pages: 426–428

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry YETT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-50598.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 21, 2004.
Barry Yett, Three Rivers, TX, pro se.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Barry Yett, federal prisoner # 61167-080, appeals the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 599 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Yett pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Yett argues that a sentence enhancement for possession of a weapon constituted impermissible double counting in violation of Amendment 599. He asserts that Amendment 599 must be applied to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, 2K2.4, and 2K2.5. Amendment 599, which amended the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4, applies to convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 844(h) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and 929(a). Yett pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and his guideline sentencing range was computed under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, based upon his drug conviction. Amendment 599 is irrelevant to his sentence, and his claims are without merit.
Yett also raises the Supreme Court's recent decision in Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), in support of his appeal. Yett's argument is not cognizable in the context of a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir.1994). Yett's motion to file a supplemental brief is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.