United States v. Quentin Nelson, 410 F. App'x 734

Nelson, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on the 2007 retroactive crack cocaine amendment.
The district court concluded Nelson was ineligible because he was not serving his original term of imprisonment.
Nelson argued the revocation-imposed term is part of the original sentence and that § 1B1.10 and its commentary cannot be mandatory.
The government argues § 1B1.10(b)(2)(C) prohibits reductions below the term already served and that § 1B1.10 remains mandatory.
The court held that § 1B1.10 is mandatory and that Booker did not render it advisory, citing controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.
Because Nelson has served his original custodial sentence and has no remaining supervised release term to modify, the appeal is moot and must be dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Nelson eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on the retroactive amendment?	Nelson contends the revocation sentence is part of the original term and should be reducible.	The government argues reductions are limited to the original term actually imposed and serve that term.	No; ineligible under § 1B1.10 because the recovery would not modify the original term actually served.
Does § 1B1.10 prohibit reducing below the term already served when the sentence is based on revocation?	Nelson asserts the provision should not bar a reduction in light of retroactive amendments.	Guidelines prohibit reductions below the term already served and not tied to revocation reductions.	Yes; § 1B1.10 prohibits such reductions.
Does Booker render § 1B1.10 advisory rather than mandatory?	Nelson argues Booker undermines the mandatory nature of § 1B1.10.	Court precedent holds Booker did not make § 1B1.10 advisory.	No; § 1B1.10 remains mandatory.
Is the appeal moot because Nelson has no remaining supervised release term to modify?	Nelson seeks relief from revocation-imposed and supervised release terms.	There is no remaining term to modify or terminate; relief is unavailable.	Yes; the appeal is moot and must be dismissed.

United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981 (5th Cir. 1997) (§ 3582(c)(2) reductions depend on policy statements and amendments)
United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2009) (Booker does not render § 1B1.10 advisory)
Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010) (limits may apply under § 3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Sixth Amendment Booker decision; confirms advisory nature of Guidelines for some purposes)