USA v. Lafayette Sheppard, No. 12-10095 (5th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-10095 Document: 00512063889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-10095 Summary Calendar November 27, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LAFAYETTE SHEPPARD, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:10-CR-6-1 Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lafayette Sheppard, federal prisoner #41284-177, appeals the district court s denial of a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based upon the amendment to the Guidelines that implemented the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Sheppard maintains that he is entitled to a reduction to his sentence based upon the crack cocaine amendments. He thus asserts that the district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-10095 Document: 00512063889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2012 No. 12-10095 The 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); see also United States v. Webb, 425 F. App x 406, 407 (5th Cir. 2011) (relying on Anderson to affirm the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion under Amendment 750 where the appellant was sentenced as a career offender). Sheppard s sentence was based not on the amount of drugs, but on his status as a career offender. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sheppard s § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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.