USA v. Leyumba Webb, No. 10-50962 (5th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 10-50962 Document: 00511481739 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-50962 Summary Calendar May 18, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LEYUMBA WEBB, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:02-CR-301-1 Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Leyumba Webb, federal prisoner # 28913-180, appeals the district court s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his 210-month sentence for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. Webb argues that, even though he was sentenced as a career offender, the district court erred by ruling that it had no authority to reduce his sentence based upon the crack cocaine amendments because United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), allows district courts to sentence defendants below guidelines ranges based upon career * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-50962 Document: 00511481739 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2011 No. 10-50962 offender enhancements. He maintains that the Fair Sentencing Act also gave the district court authority to reduce his sentence. The crack cocaine amendments did not give the district court authority to reduce Webb s sentence under § 3582(c)(2) because Webb was sentenced as a career offender, and [t]he crack cocaine guideline amendments do not apply to prisoners sentenced as career offenders. United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir. 2009). While Booker allowed district courts to sentence career offenders below their guidelines sentence ranges, Booker did not give the district court authority to reduce Webb s sentence because Booker does not apply in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237-39 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009). The Fair Sentencing Act did not give the district court authority to reduce Webb s sentence because Webb was sentenced and had filed his direct appeal before its passage, and the Fair Sentencing Act does not apply retroactively. See United States v. Doggins, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 438935, at *4 (5th Cir. Feb. 9, 2011). AFFIRMED. 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.
