
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Albert SMITH, III, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-40301
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 9, 2010.
    Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tyler, TX, Michelle S. Englade, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Albert Smith, III, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Albert Smith, III, federal prisoner # 10498-078, appeals the district court’s judgment denying his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(2) based on the amendment of the crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines. Smith argues that in denying the motion, the district court treated the Guidelines as mandatory in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) and Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), and thus, failed to consider the purpose of the amendment, which was to cure the disparity in sentencing between crack and powdered cocaine. He asserted that his sentencing under the career offender Guideline did not preclude a reduction of his sentence under § 3582(c)(2).

Smith’s argument that his sentencing under the career offender Guideline does not preclude a reduction of his sentence is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 790 & n. 4, 791 & n. 8. His arguments based on the Booker and Kimbrough decisions are foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 236-39 (5th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     