# United States Court of Appeals

f or 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 Cr iminal Procedure

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4.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: 07/06/2021No. 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 wh en 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. Hend

erson , 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 78 2, 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 distric t 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

senten ce imposed would have been the same. Accordingly, Betts has not Case: 20-40331 Document: 00515927090 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2021No. 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