United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40331

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Darrin Lashaon Betts, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-22-1

Before Haynes, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Darrin Lashaon Betts, federal prisoner # 21755-078, appeals the 

district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. Betts 

pleaded guilty in 2015 pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 6, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40331 Document: 00515927090 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2021
No. 20-40331

2

11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). He 

contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying the 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion despite the plea agreement because, under Hughes v. 

United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018), both the Government and the district 

court acknowledged the applicable guidelines range at sentencing and 

because he did not receive a benefit from the plea agreement.

This court reviews the district court’s denial of Betts’s § 3582(c)(2) 

motion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 

717 (5th Cir. 2011). Section 3582(c)(2) allows for the discretionary reduction 

of a sentence when the defendant is sentenced to a prison term based on a 

sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing 

Commission under 28 U.S.C. § 994(o) if the reduction is consistent with 

Sentencing Commission policy statements. § 3582(c)(2). A two-step 

process governs a motion for a sentence reduction. Id. First, the district 

court determines if the defendant is eligible for a reduction under U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10 and the extent of the reduction authorized by the amended 

guidelines range. Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717. If the defendant is eligible for 

a reduction, the district court proceeds to the second step to determine 

whether, in its discretion, a reduction is warranted in consideration of any 

applicable § 3553(a) factors. Id. Amendment 782, which became effective 

on November 1, 2014, amended the drug quantity tables and lowered by two 

levels the base offense levels for certain drug offenses. See U.S.S.G., App. 

C., Amend. 782; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d).

As the Government points out, the district court applied Amendment 

782 in the determination of Betts’s guidelines range at sentencing. Thus, 

there is no new amendment to consider. Additionally, the district court at 

the original sentencing made clear that even without the guidelines, the 

sentence imposed would have been the same. Accordingly, Betts has not 

Case: 20-40331 Document: 00515927090 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2021
No. 20-40331

3

shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a 

§ 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-40331 Document: 00515927090 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/06/2021