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 consideration of the

relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, 

 

* 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

April 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20510 Document: 00513486433 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2016
No. 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 did 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 consideration 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 

relevant 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. While the district court 

was not required to give 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. Rodriguez, 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: 04/29/2016
No. 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