Case ID: f-appx_546/html/0336-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray HATTON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30767
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 19, 2013.
    Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, John Luke Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ray Hatton, Jr., Lafayette, LA, pro se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ray Hatton, Jr., federal prisoner # 13987-035, appeals the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He pleaded guilty to using a facility in interstate commerce to attempt to coerce a minor to engage in criminal sexual acts and was sentenced to 65 months in prison.

On appeal, Hatton contends that he is entitled to resentencing under Amendment 732 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court is authorized to reduce a sentence based on a sentencing range that subsequently was lowered by the Sentencing Commission only if the amendment to the Guidelines is listed in § lB1.10(c) of the Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States Sentenoing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a) & cmt. n. 1 (2004). Amendment 732 is not listed in § lB1.10(c). Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Hatton’s motion was not an abuse of discretion. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1 (2004); United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 217-18 (5th Cir.1996).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.