United States v. Roberson

302 F. App'x 327
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 10, 2008
Docket08-50339
StatusUnpublished

This text of 302 F. App'x 327 (United States v. Roberson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Roberson, 302 F. App'x 327 (5th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Nicholas Quantel Roberson, federal prisoner # 56146-180, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of the 240-month sentence he is serving following his guilty plea to possession with *328 intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. Roberson argues pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines that he is entitled to resentencing. We review the district court’s ruling for abuse of discretion. United States v. Townsend, 55 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir.1995).

In the circumstance where a prisoner’s guidelines range has subsequently been lowered as a result of a listed amendment to the Guidelines Manual, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) only if such a reduction is consistent with policy statement § 1B1.10. § lB1.10(a). Amendment 706 is listed as a “covered amendment,” see § lB1.10(c); however, “[eligibility for consideration under [§ 3582(c)(2) ] is triggered only by an amendment ... that lowers the applicable guideline range.” § 1B1.10, cmt. (n.l).

Based upon his guilty plea in the instant case to possession of more than 50 grams of crack cocaine and, additionally, the penalty enhancement he received for his 2002 Texas felony drug offense, Roberson faced a mandatory minimum 20-year term of imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(A)(iii). A guidelines sentence may not be imposed that is less than the statutorily required minimum sentence. § 5G1.1(c)(2). The guidelines amendment would therefore not have the effect of lowering his applicable guidelines range, and the district court’s denial of his motion was not an abuse of discretion. Cf. United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 431 (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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Donald Pardue
36 F.3d 429 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Robert Wade Townsend
55 F.3d 168 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
302 F. App'x 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-roberson-ca5-2008.