USA v. Billy Wheelock, No. 09-51124 (5th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 09-51124 Document: 00511202761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-51124 Summary Calendar August 13, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BILLY RAY WHEELOCK, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:92-CR-128-1 Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant Billy Ray Wheelock appeals the district court s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. In his § 3582(c)(2) motion, Wheelock asserts that he is eligible for a sentence reduction based on Amendments 591, 706, and 715 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Wheelock was sentenced to a statutorily-mandated term of life imprisonment on his conviction for conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine because he committed that offense following two or more prior * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-51124 Document: 00511202761 Page: 2 No. 09-51124 Date Filed: 08/13/2010 convictions for a felony drug offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Because, pursuant to our decision in United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575, 577-81 (5th Cir. 2010), Wheelock was subject to a statutorily-mandated sentence that exceeded the guideline range, he was ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), regardless of any retroactive amendments affecting that guideline range. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED; the government s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED; and its alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as moot. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.