United States v. McKinney , 354 F. App'x 340 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                        FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    December 1, 2009
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,                     No. 09-5111
    v.                                          (N.D. Oklahoma)
    ALPHIE PHILLIP MCKINNEY,                    (D.C. No. 4:08-CR-00017-TCK-1)
    Defendant - Appellant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.
    Alphie Phillip McKinney, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, appeals from
    the district court’s dismissal of his motion for reduction of sentence under
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2). Section 3582(c)(2) provides that
    in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of
    imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
    lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o),
    upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of
    Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of
    *
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
    this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
    not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
    and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
    consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section
    3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is
    consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
    Commission.
    In seeking a reduction in his sentence, Mr. McKinney relied on Amendments 599
    and 709 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG). We affirm the
    dismissal because Amendment 599 predated his sentence and Amendment 709 is
    not retroactive.
    Mr. McKinney was indicted on January 9, 2008, on one count of
    possessing, on or about October 31, 2007, a firearm and ammunition after having
    previously been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
    exceeding one year. See 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1) and 924(a)(2). On July 15,
    2008, he pleaded guilty to the charge. He was sentenced in October 2008 to 48
    months’ imprisonment based on an offense level of 21 and a criminal-history
    category of III. On July 13, 2009, he filed his motion under § 3582(c)(2),
    contending that he was entitled to a sentence reduction. The district court
    dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal Mr. McKinney challenges this
    dismissal and also argues that his sentence was unlawful under United States v.
    Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005).
    We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope
    of its authority under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2). See United States v. Rhodes, 
    549 F.3d 833
    , 837 (10th Cir. 2008). Mr. McKinney’s first claim is that the district
    -2-
    court erred in not reducing his sentence under Amendment 599. But Amendment
    599 became effective in 2000, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual app. C,
    Vol. II at 71, long before Mr. McKinney was sentenced. Therefore, he cannot
    obtain relief. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2) (a court may reduce a sentence if it was
    based on a “sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered” (emphasis
    added)).
    Mr. McKinney’s second argument is that the district court erred in ruling
    that Amendment 709 is not retroactive. Amendment 709 is not, however, in the
    list of retroactive amendments set forth in USSG § 1B1.10(c). It therefore cannot
    be considered the basis for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See USSG
    § 1B1.10(a)(2)(A).
    As for Mr. McKinney’s Booker claim, we decline to address it because he
    did not raise it in district court. See King v. United States, 
    301 F.3d 1270
    , 1274
    (10th Cir. 2002) (As a general rule, “this court will not consider an issue on
    appeal that was not raised below.”)
    We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. McKinney’s motion.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    Harris L Hartz
    Circuit Judge
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-5111

Citation Numbers: 354 F. App'x 340

Judges: Anderson, Hartz, Seymour

Filed Date: 12/1/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023