United States v. Gregory Williams

Case: 09-40220 Document: 00511007382 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
January 19, 2010
No. 09-40220
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

GREGORY DARNELL WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:94-CR-21-3

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gregory Darnell Williams appeals the district court’s denial of his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce sentence seeking a reduction based on the
retroactive amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines. The Government moves
for summary affirmance, arguing that Williams was ineligible for relief under
§ 3582(c)(2) because he was sentenced not under the crack guidelines but as a
career offender, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-40220 Document: 00511007382 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2010
No. 09-40220

Because Williams’s guideline range was not derived from the quantity of
crack cocaine involved in the offense, but rather from his career offender status,
the district court was correct in concluding that a sentencing reduction was not
permitted. See § 3582(c)(2). Williams argues that the district court should have
the authority pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his term of imprisonment
notwithstanding his status as a career offender in light of United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The argument is unavailing because “the concerns
at issue in Booker do not apply in an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) proceeding.” United
States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009).
Although the Guidelines must be treated as advisory in an original sentencing
proceeding, Booker does not prevent Congress from incorporating a Guideline
provision “as a means of defining and limiting a district court’s authority to
reduce a sentence under § 3582(c).” Id. at 239 (internal quotation and citation
omitted). Williams concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Doublin but
seeks to preserve the argument for possible Supreme Court review.
Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
GRANTED, and the appeal is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion
for an extension of time in which to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary.