
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Nathaniel Howard THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-41090
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 3, 2010.
    Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, Heather Harris Rattan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert Gerard Arrambide, Federal Defender’s Office, Sherman, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Howard Thomas, federal prisoner # 07052-078, appeals the district court’s judgment of October 6, 2008, denying his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on U.S.S.G.App. C, Amendment 591 (Nov. 2000). Thomas 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 was authorized to consider the reduced offense level under the amendment and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in considering the motion. This issue is foreclosed by this court’s decisions in 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), and United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 670-71 (5th Cir.2009), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 28, 2010) (No. 09-8939).

On appeal, Thomas does not address the denial of relief based on the specific provisions of Amendment 591. When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that issue. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Arguments must be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Any claim based on Amendment 591 must be deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motions are DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     