United States v. David Brown ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 11-51246       Document: 00512090542         Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/20/2012
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    December 20, 2012
    No. 11-51246
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    DAVID JAMES BROWN,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:07-CR-30-1
    Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    David James Brown, federal prisoner # 83171-180, is serving a 120-month
    sentence for his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50
    grams or more of cocaine base. Brown appeals the district court’s denial of his
    18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his sentence based on the
    retroactive amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the guideline for crack cocaine
    offenses.
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    Case: 11-51246     Document: 00512090542      Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/20/2012
    No. 11-51246
    Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s
    sentence “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of
    imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered
    by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o).” § 3582(c)(2); see
    United States v. Doublin, 
    572 F.3d 235
    , 237 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court’s
    decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for an
    abuse of discretion, while the court’s interpretation of the Guidelines is reviewed
    de novo. United States v. Evans, 
    587 F.3d 667
    , 672 (5th Cir. 2009).
    As the district court determined, Brown was subject to a mandatory 10-
    year minimum sentence under former 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). A mandatory
    minimum statutory penalty overrides the retroactive application of a new
    guideline. See United States v. Pardue, 
    36 F.3d 429
    , 431 (5th Cir. 1994).
    Regardless of whether § 3582(c)(2) provided the district court with authority to
    reduce Brown’s sentence to the 10-year floor, the Government did not file a
    motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) requesting a sentence below the
    mandatory minimum; thus, the district court did not have the authority to
    impose a sentence below 10 years. See United States v. Phillips, 
    382 F.3d 489
    ,
    499 (5th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Krumnow, 
    476 F.3d 294
    , 297 (5th
    Cir. 2007).
    The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the
    judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative
    motion for an extension of time in which to file a brief is DENIED as
    unnecessary.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-51246

Judges: King, Clement, Higginson

Filed Date: 12/21/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024