United States v. Alfred Stokes

714 F. App'x 426

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 8, 2018
• Docket: 17-60309 Summary Calendar
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Alfred George Stokes, proceeding pro se, challenges the denial of his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) following an amendment to Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1 (applicable to crimes involving controlled substances). The district court ruled he was ineligible for a sentence modification because he could have been sentenced as a career offender under Guideline § 4B1.1 (applicable to offenders who are: over 18 years old, committed a erime-of-violence or controlled-substance felony, and had committed at least two prior, crime-of-violenee or controlled-substance felonies). Although Stokes concedes he qualified as a career offender at the time of sentencing, he contends he is eligible for a modification because the court instead determined his offense level under the above-referenced Guideline § 2D1.1.

The court’s decision to reduce a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion, e.g., United States v. Townsend, 55 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 1995); but defendant’s eligibility for a sentence reduction, the issue at hand, is reviewed de novo, United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009).

Application Note 1(A) to Guideline § 1B1.10 (pertaining to reduction of term of imprisonment with amendment of the Guidelines) prohibits modifying a sentence if “the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline”. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.l(A); United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575, 581 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding Application Note 1(A) to Guideline § 1B1.10 is authoritative). In this instance, the operation of the career-offender Guideline prevented the court’s modifying Stokes’ sentence pursuant j;o 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.l(A); U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(b)(3).

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* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.