Opinion

United States v. Christopher Brown

  • 401 F. App'x 994
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Filed
Nov 22, 2010
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Jolly, Garza, Stewart
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 67.1%

The opinion

Case: 08-31055 Document: 00511300509 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 22, 2010

No. 08-31055

Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:01-CR-10012-2

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Michael Brown, federal prisoner # 10980-035, was convicted

by a jury of one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base (crack)

and four distribution counts. Brown was sentenced to life in prison on the

conspiracy count and concurrent terms of 40 year on the distribution counts.

Brown now appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion

to reduce his sentence based on amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines

reducing base offense levels for some crack cocaine offenses. Brown argues that

*

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: 08-31055 Document: 00511300509 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2010

No. 08-31055

the district court erred by concluding that the amendments did not reduce his

sentencing range, asserting that the amendments generally had the effect of

reducing base offense levels by two levels; that the application of the 4.5

kilogram threshold for a base offense level of 38 was improperly applied to him

retroactively in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause; that the district court had

authority to revisit his sentence and should have treated the Guidelines as

advisory rather than mandatory pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

220 (2005); and that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing.

Brown’s arguments are without merit.

Amendment 706 altered the thresholds for crack cocaine offense levels.

Previously, more than 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine resulted in a base offense

level of 38; under the amendments, it takes 4.5 kilograms of crack to achieve

that offense level. However, Brown was held accountable for 106.667 kilograms

of crack cocaine, which is well above the amended amount need for level 38.

Thus, the amendments did not affect Brown’s guidelines range, and the district

court had no authority to reduce his sentence. See U.S.S.G.§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B),

p.s.; United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575, 580 (5th Cir. 2010).

Brown’s arguments regarding Booker are foreclosed by Dillon v. United

States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691-94 (2010), and United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d

235, 238 (5th Cir. 2009). In addition, there was no ex post facto violation

because Brown was not subjected to greater punishment by the retroactive

application of the amendments. See United States v. Kimler, 167 F.3d 889, 893

(5th. Cir. 1999). Finally, Brown has identified no factual disputes that required

an evidentiary hearing.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.