United States v. Young

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 21, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-50518 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus WILLIAM YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-91-CR-37-1 -------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* William Young, federal prisoner number 56038-080, appeals the denial of his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 (2001), clarified an amendment to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3). He argues that under the clarification he would not have been eligible for the sentencing enhancement he received under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), and its corresponding guideline provision at U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b)(3). * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 03-50518 -2- The amendment that Young argues was clarified by Buford is Amendment 382, effective November 1, 1991, which changed the language in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3). Amendment 382 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), and therefore may not be applied retroactively on Young’s motion. See United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 218 (5th Cir. 1996). The denial of Young’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion was not an abuse of the district court’s discretion. Its order is AFFIRMED.