### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 20510 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
TOMMY ALEXANDER, SR. , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:89

- CR

- 331

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tommy Alexander, Sr., federal prisoner # 07193

- 035 , appeals the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district
court determined that, while Alexander was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782, a reduction was not merited upon con sideration of the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10,

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 29, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-20510 Document: 00513486433 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2016No. 15

- 20510

2 comment. (n.1(B)). We review the district court’s denial of the motion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Alexander contends that he was entitled to resentencing because he was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. He asserts that the district court failed to calculate the amended guidelines range that applied in light of Amendment 782 and di d not appropriately consider his post

- sentencing conduct. Alexander further suggests that the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation for its decision to deny his motion. The record establishes that the district court gave due consider ation to Alexander’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, assessed the arguments that he presented in favor of a reduction, and calculated the initial and amended guidelines ranges. The district court, as reflected in its reasons for the denial, concluded that the releva nt sentencing factors and the circumstances of the case weighed against exercising its discretion to grant a reduction

. See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010) ; United States v. Whitebird , 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). Alexander’s suggestion that the district court did not properly balance the sentencing factors and that we should reassess them is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See Whitebird , 55 F.3d at 1010. W hile the district court was not required to g ive reasons as long as it considered the relevant factors, the court nonetheless set forth reasons for its denial that encompassed those factors

. See United States v. Cooley , 590 F.3d 293, 297

- 98 (5th Cir. 2009). For the first time in his reply brief, Alexander contends that the district court’s refusal to grant a reduction in sentence was tantamount to imposing an upward departure. We generally do not review an argument that is raised for the first time in a reply brief. See United States v. Rodrigue z , 602 F.3d 346, 360 (5th Cir. 2010) . Regardless, the argument lacks merit because § 3582(c)(2) merely authorizes a limited and discretionary adjustment to an otherwise final Case: 15-20510 Document: 00513486433 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2016No. 15

- 20510

3 sentence and is not a plenary resentencing proceeding. See Dillon , 560 U.S. at
826

- 27; 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 Evans , 587 F.3d at 672 . Accordingly , the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Case: 15-20510 Document: 00513486433 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/29/2016