United States v. Spencer , 334 F. App'x 705 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    October 19, 2009
    No. 08-41346
    Summary Calendar               Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    TRAVIS SPENCER,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:93-CR-223-ALL
    Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Travis Spencer appeals the denial of motions to amend his original
    sentence and to correct a clerical error in an amended judgment. A collateral
    attack on or direct appeal from the 1995 sentence would be untimely, and
    Spencer disavows such a challenge.     See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (f); F ED. R. A PP.
    P. 4(b)(1)(A).
    *
    Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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    should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
    No. 08-41346
    Spencer contends that 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(B) provides an avenue for
    applying 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (b)(1) to modify the sentence. This contention lacks
    merit because § 3582(c)(1)(B) allows a district court to modify an existing term
    of imprisonment to the extent “expressly permitted by statute,” and § 3553(b)(1)
    does not expressly permit the modification of a sentence that has already been
    imposed. See §§ 3553(b)(1), § 3582(c)(1)(B). Section 3582(c)(1)(B) therefore does
    not provide a means for applying § 3553(b)(1). See United States v. Garcia-
    Quintanilla, 
    574 F.3d 295
    , 303 (5th Cir. 2009) (refusing to use § 3582(c) as a
    means to apply a statute that does not expressly permit modification of a
    sentence that has already been imposed). Moreover, § 3553(b)(1), which required
    treating the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, is unconstitutional. United
    States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 245 (2005).
    Any clerical error was corrected by the Second Amended Judgment
    reflecting that the district court recommended but did not order that the Bureau
    of Prisons run Spencer’s federal sentence consecutively to an undischarged state
    sentence. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-41346

Citation Numbers: 334 F. App'x 705

Judges: Davis, Smith, Dennis

Filed Date: 10/19/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024