Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-11143/USCOURTS-ca5-15-11143-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfred Brooks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-11143

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

ALFRED BROOKS,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:98-CR-84-2

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfred Brooks, federal prisoner # 30337-077, pleaded guilty to being a 

felon in possession of a firearm, maintaining a place for the purpose of 

manufacturing, distributing, or using a controlled substance and aiding and 

abetting, and using and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense 

and aiding and abetting. He appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to Amendment 782 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 17, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-11143 Document: 00513427689 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2016
No. 15-11143

2

to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the district court abused its 

discretion in finding he was ineligible for a sentence reduction because the 

calculation of his advisory guidelines range did not involve a drug quantity. 

He contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction because his conviction 

for maintaining a place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using 

a controlled substance involved drugs. He further asserts that the district 

court based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence and 

did not consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

The district court correctly determined that Brooks was not eligible for a 

sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 because his sentence was not 

based on U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). Because Brooks’s sentence was not based on a 

guidelines range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing 

Commission, he was ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on 

Amendment 782. See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 790-91 (5th Cir. 

2009) (per curiam). Therefore, Brooks has not shown that the district court 

abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. 

Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

In addition, Brooks challenges the drug quantity alleged in the 

indictment and Presentence Report and argues that the Government breached 

his plea agreement by using protected information to increase his sentence. 

However, § 3582(c)(2) is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge purported 

errors in the original criminal proceeding and sentencing. See United States 

v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-11143 Document: 00513427689 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2016