United States v. Young

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 21, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-50518
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM YOUNG,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-91-CR-37-1
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Young, federal prisoner number 56038-080, appeals
the denial of his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that Buford v. United States,
532 U.S. 59 (2001), clarified an amendment to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2,
comment. (n.3). He argues that under the clarification he would
not have been eligible for the sentencing enhancement he received
under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), and
its corresponding guideline provision at U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b)(3).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-50518
-2-
The amendment that Young argues was clarified by Buford is
Amendment 382, effective November 1, 1991, which changed the
language in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3). Amendment 382 is
not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), and therefore may not be
applied retroactively on Young’s motion. See United States v.
Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 218 (5th Cir. 1996). The denial of Young’s
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion was not an abuse of the district
court’s discretion. Its order is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --