IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-40247
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JERRY WAYNE SEWELL, SR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(1:89-CR-44-1)
January 17, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
On November 15, 1989, a jury convicted Jerry Wayne Sewell,
along with four co-defendants, of three counts involving 1)
conspiracy to manufacture phenylacetone (P2P) and to manufacture,
to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute amphetamine
and methamphetamine; 2) manufacturing P2P; and, 3) manufacturing a
substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. The
district court sentenced Sewell to 360 months imprisonment on each
count, such terms to run concurrently. This court affirmed
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
Sewell's conviction and sentence. United States v. Sherrod, 964
F.2d 1501 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1367 (1993).
After his conviction became final, the United States
Sentencing Guideline Commission adopted Amendment 484 to U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1, which clarified the proper method for calculating the
amount of controlled substance in a mixture. On the basis of
Amendment 484, which applies retroactively, Sewell and his four co-
defendants sought resentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),
alleging that the district court had miscalculated the amount of
controlled substances at the original sentencing hearing.
The district court recomputed the amount of controlled
substances, which had the effect of lowering Sewell's co-
defendant's offense levels by six levels. The district court,
however, refused to lower Sewell's base offense level because it
found that Sewell was a career offender pursuant to § 4B1.1.
Applying § 4B1.1, the district court concluded that Sewell's
offense level was 34, which yielded a guideline sentence of 262 to
327 months. Based on the guideline, the district court reduced
Sewell's sentence to 294 months.
On appeal, Sewell argues that the district court miscalculated
the amount of controlled substances to be used in determining his
sentence. Sewell's arguments are unavailing, however. The amount
of controlled substances was irrelevant to Sewell's sentence. The
district court sentenced Sewell on the basis of the career offender
provision of § 4B1.1, the application of which Sewell does not
challenge on appeal.
2
We AFFIRM the district court's sentencing order.
3