USA v. Mosley, No. 08-40979 (5th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 08-40979 Document: 00511315424 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-40979 Conference Calendar December 8, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CRAIG LAMARIO MOSLEY, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CR-14-18 Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Craig Lamario Mosley, federal prisoner # 21362-009, was convicted of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute and received the statutory minimum sentence of 240 months. He now appeals the district court s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines governing crack cocaine. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a brief. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 08-40979 Document: 00511315424 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2010 No. 08-40979 Because Mosley was sentenced to a mandatory statutory minimum, the district court lacked authority to grant a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575, 579-81 (5th Cir. 2010); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment (n.1(A)). Mosley s reliance on the principles set forth in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is without merit; Booker is inapplicable to a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691-94 (2010). The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the Government s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary. 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.