Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10948/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10948-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Lance Dickerson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10948

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JASON LANCE DICKERSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-214-2

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jason Lance Dickerson, federal prisoner # 47139-177, appeals the denial 

of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based upon 

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He maintains that the district 

court failed to consider whether he was eligible for a reduction in light of the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the need for rehabilitation. Dickerson further

suggests that the district court inordinately relied on the guideline sentencing 

 

* 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 10, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10948 Document: 00513413859 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2016
No. 15-10948

2

range, failed to consider the policies underlying Amendment 782, and violated

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 

The record reflects that Dickerson was ineligible for a sentence reduction 

under § 3582(c)(2) because Amendment 782 did not have the effect of lowering

his sentencing range. His guideline sentencing range at his initial sentencing 

exceeded the statutory maximum sentence that applied to his offense; thus, his 

sentencing range was restricted to the statutory maximum punishment. See

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a). If Dickerson was granted the two-level reduction provided 

by Amendment 782, his guideline sentencing range would remain greater than 

the statutory maximum sentence; his amended guideline sentencing range also 

would be limited to the statutory maximum punishment. See id. Accordingly,

because Amendment 782 would not reduce Dickerson’s sentencing range, the 

district court properly found that he was ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2). 

See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) & comment. (n.1(A)); Dillon v. United States, 

560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). 

Dickerson’s challenges to the district court’s ruling lack merit. Because 

he was ineligible for a reduction under Amendment 782, there was no basis for 

the district court to consider the § 3553(a) factors or the need for rehabilitation. 

Furthermore, the district court did not have to review the policies underlying 

Amendment 782 because they did not implicate his eligibility for relief under 

§ 3582(c)(2). His assertion that the district court violated Booker is unavailing

because Booker does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See United States 

v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir. 2009).

Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. 

See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10948 Document: 00513413859 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2016