
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenneth Wayne MALLORY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-40193
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 20, 2010.
    Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tyler, TX, Tracey M. Batson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Denise S. Benson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender’s Office, Sherman, TX, George Patrick Black, Federal Defender’s Office, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Wayne Mallory, federal prisoner # 11482-078, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on the amendments to the crack cocaine Guideline. The Government moves for summary affirmance, arguing that Mallory was ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2) because he was sentenced not under the crack cocaine Guideline but as a career offender, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

Because Mallory’s guidelines imprisonment range was not derived from the quantity of crack cocaine involved in the offense, but rather from his career offender status, the district court was correct in concluding that a sentencing reduction was not permitted. See § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 790-91 (5th Cir.2009). Mallory argues that, in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the district court should have the authority pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his term of imprisonment notwithstanding his status as a career offender. This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 236-39 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009). Mallory concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Doublin but seeks to preserve the argument for possible Supreme Court review.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time in which to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     