Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20559 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. J UAN ZAMO RA D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 89- C R
- 232- 1 B ef ore K IN G , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * J u a n Z a m o r a , fe d e r a l p r is o n e r#4 9 9 0 2 - 0 7 9 , a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s deni alof

hi s 18 U . S. C . § 3582(c ) ( 2) m ot i on t o r edu ce h i s sen t enc e, w hi c h w as i m po s e d f

o l l o w i ng hi s 1 99 0 c o nvi c t i o ns o n m ul t i pl e c o unt s r e l at e d t o t he di s t r ibut i o n o f

c o c ai ne a nd m ar ij uana . Z am o r a ar gue s t hatthe s ubs e que nt am en dm en tof

cer t ai n s e ctions of

t h e U n i t ed S t ates S en t en ci n g G u i del i n es shou l d resul ti n a redu ct i on of hi s s en t en ce. H e asse rt s t h at s om e of t h ese a m e n d m e n ts w e r e “ c la r ify in g” a m e n d m e n ts , w h ic h c a n b e a p p lie dre tr o a c tiv e ly United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 24, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20559

2 r egar dl es s of

w het hert he G ui del i nes s pec i f i c al l y de si gnat e the am endm entas ret roact ive. P u r s u a n t t o § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ), ad e fe n d a n t m a yh a v e h is s e n te n c e m o d ifie dif he w as s ent enc ed t o at er m of i m pri so nm entbas ed upon a se nt enc i ng r ange that sub sequ en t ly w a s low ered by the S en t en ci n g C om m i ssi on . Th e di st ri ctcourt m ay gran ta red u ct i on if consi st en tw i t h t h e app l i cabl e pol i cy st atem en t s i ssued by t he Sent enc i ng C om m i ss i on. § 3582(c ) ( 2) . Th e Sent enc i ng C om m i ss i on has sta te dinU .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .10 th a t u n les s a n a m e n d m e n t is liste din § 1 B 1 .10 (c), a r e duc t i o n b as e d o n t he a m e ndm e ntund e r§ 3 58 2(c ) i s no tc o ns i s t e ntw i t h t he p o lic ys ta te m e n to f § 1 B 1 .1 0 . S ee § 1 B1 . 1 0 , c o mm e n t . (n . 1 (A) ) . We r e v i e w a di st ri ctcourt ’ s re f

u salt o l ow er a defen da n t ’ s s en t en ce un der § 3582 (c) ( 2) f or a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . S eeUn itedS ta tes v. D ra th , 89 F .3d 2 1 6, 217 - 18 (5t h C i r. 1 9 9 6 ).A l t h ou gh Za m ora argu es t h at c ert ai n gu i del i n es s ect i on s hav e been a me n d e d , h e h a s n o ts p e c i f i e dwh i c h a me n d me n t s h e i s r e fe r r i n gt o o rs h o wn th a t th ese am en d m en ts ap p l y re troa ctive ly. In ad d i ti on , w e h a ve h eld th a t, exce p ton d i rectapp eal , a cl ari f yi n g am en dm en ti s not ret roact ivel y ap pl i ed u n le s s th e a m e n d m e n t is lis te din§ 1 B 1 .1 0 (c ). S eeD ra th , 89 F. 3d at217. Fi nall y, Za m o r a has no ts ho w n tha tt he di s t r i c tc o ur tw as r e quir e d t o pr o vi de ad di t i on alreasons t o expl ai n i t s den i al of h i s m ot i on . A ccor di n gl y, t h e di st ri ct c o u r t d idn o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n ind e n y in gZ a m o r a ’ s § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) m o tio n . AF F I RMED.