IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                 FILED
                                                                         December 21, 2009
                                     No. 08-10654
                                   Summary Calendar                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                               Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARCUS LYNN FOSTER,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 2:03-CR-46-5


Before GARWOOD, DENNIS and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       Marcus Lynn Foster, federal prisoner # 30525-177, filed a motion for a
reduced sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He sought a sentence
reduction based on Amendment 706 to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which
reduced the base offense level for most crack cocaine offenses. See United States
v. Burns, 

, 861 (5th Cir. 2008). Foster appeals the district court’s
denial of that motion. Foster argues that the district court erred by determining



       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
that because the crack cocaine amendments did not lower his guidelines range,
he was ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2).
      Foster’s argument is premised, in part, upon his assertion that the
prohibition set forth in United States v. Booker, 

(2005), against the
mandatory application of the Guidelines applies in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings.
This court determined in United States v. Doublin, 

, 238 (5th Cir.
2009), cert. denied, 

(Nov. 2, 2009) (No. 09-6657), that “the
concerns at issue in Booker do not apply in a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) proceeding.”
Also, “Booker does not alter the mandatory character of Guideline § 1B1.10’s
limitations on sentence reductions.”        

limitation is that a
§ 3582(c)(2) reduction is not authorized if an amendment “does not have the
effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.”          U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). In Foster’s case, the amended guidelines yielded the same
sentencing range that was used when Foster was originally sentenced. The
district court therefore did not err in denying Foster’s motion. See 

; § 3582(c)(2); § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
      AFFIRMED.




                                        2