P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50433 Su m m ar yC al 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. IVYL EE GR EE N , 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 W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 7 : 0 4

- CR- 1 1 4

- ALL

B ef ore G A R W O O D , D E N N IS an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * I n 2 00 5 I vy Lee G r e e n, fe de r al pr i s o ne r # 32 85 6- 01 3, pl e ad e d guil t y t o o ne c o unto f

po s s e s s i o n wi t h i nt e ntt o di s t ribut e c r ac k c o c ai ne . H e a ppe al s t he deni alof

hi s m ot i on f

orr educ t i on o f

s ent enc e pur suantt o 18 U
. S. C
. § 3 582(c ) ( 2) ba s e d up o n a m e ndm e nt s t o t he Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , w hi c h l ow e r e d t he
a p p lic a b le o ffe n s e le v e l fo rcr a c kco c a in e o ffe n s e s . United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

23, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50433

2 E f fect ive N ovem ber 1, 200 7, t h e U n i t ed S t ates S en t en ci n g C om m i ssi on a d op tedA m en d m en t 70 6 , w h i ch m od i fi ed th e g u i d eli n es ra n ge s ap p l i ca b l e to crack coc ai n e of

fen ses t o reduce the di spari t y betw een crack coc ai n e an d p ow der cocai n e sentences. Uni t e d St at e s v . Bur ns , 5 2 6 F
. 3 d 8 5 2 , 8 6 1 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ). In gen eral , t h e e ff

ectof A m en dm en t706 i s t o decrease by t w o l evel s t h e base
o ffe n s e le v e ls fo rcr a c kco c a in e o ffe n s e s . S eeU. S
. S
. G. § 2 D1
. 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ; U. S
. S
. G. Su pp. t o App’ x C , A m en d. 706. Am endm ent706 has b ee n m ade r et r oac t ive e ffe c tiv e M a r c h 3 , 2 0 0 8
. Burns , 526 F. 3d at861.

“ S ect i on 358 2(c) ( 2) perm its a d ist ri ctcourtt o reduce a ter m of im p r is o n m e n t w h e n it is b a s e d u p o n as e n te n c in gra n g e th a t h a s s u b s e q u e n tly b e e n lo w e r e db ya n a m e n d m e n t t o th e G u id e lin e s , if su c h are d u c tio n is
c o n s is te n t w ith th e p o lic ys ta te m e n ts is s u e db yth e S e n te n c in gC o m m is s io n .” Uni t e d St ate s v. G onzalez - Bal de r as , 10 5 F. 3d9 81 , 9 82 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 97 )
. The di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on w h et h er t o reduce a se n t en ce i s r evi ew ed f or abu se of d is c r e tio n . Un ited S ta tesv . D o u b lin , 5 7 2 F
. 3 d23 5 , 23 7 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 9 ). In exerci si n g i t s di scr et i on as t o w h et h er t o l ow er a defenda n t ’ s sente n ce un der § 358 2(c) ( 2) , the di st ri ctcou rtis inst ructed to c on si der ( 1) t h e 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) fac t o r s , ( 2) “t he na t ur e a nd s e r i ou sness o f t he da nge rt o a ny pe r s o n o rt he
com m u n i t y t h at m ay be p osed b ya red u ct i on i n t h e defen da n t ’ s t erm of i m pri sonm en t” an d ( 3) “ post- sentenci n g cond u ctof t h e defen da n tt h at oc curred af t eri m pos i ti on o f

t he o r i gi nalt er m of i m pri so nm ent
. ” U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 10,
co m m e n t. n .1(B )(ii)- (iii). T h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed the redu ct i on based u pon , i n t er al i a, t h e need b o th to p rotect th e pu b li c a n d to d eter G ree n from futu re cri m i n a l con d u ct in l i ghto f G r e e n’ s l e ngthy c r i m i nalhi s t o r y; t he di s t r i c tc o ur ta l s o c i t e d t he
r e p e a t e dd is c ip lin a r yin fr a c tio n s co m m itt e db yG r e e n inp r is o n fo llo w in gh is
con victi on . G ree n ’ s con ten ti on tha t his cri m i n a l co n d u ct w a s too rem ote to j us t i f y t h e d e n i a l o f t h e r e q u e s t e d r e d u c t i o n i s b e l i e d b y t h e r e c o r d
. As t he G o v e rn m e n t, w h ich op p o se da n yre d u ctio n b e low , sta te s in its b rie f:N o. 08- 50433

3 “D u rin gth e tim e sin ce h is firs t se rio u s o ffen se (R o b b e ryin1 9 7 8 ),

. . . A ppel l antw as c onvi c t ed of T hef ti n 1979, B urgl ar y i n 1991, P oss ess i on of M a rij u a n ai n 19 8 5 , a n oth er T h eft i n 1 9 8 7 , F a i l u re to Identi f y t o a P ol i ce O f

f i cer i n 199 0, h e served f ive years i n pri son f

or B u r g la r yo f aH a b ita tio n in 1 9 9 1 (a d d itio n a lly , h e w a s h e ld a cc o u n ta b le a t th a t t im e fo r e v a d in gd e te n tion ), F a il u re to Id e n tify to aP e a c e O ffic e rin1 9 9 3 , a n o th e rT h e ft in 1 9 9 3 , D r iv in gw h ile In to x ic a te din1 9 9 5 , R e s is tin gA r r e s t in 1 9 9 5 , E v a d in gD e te n tio n in 1 9 9 5 , T h e ft b y R ep etitionin19 9 5 , P o s s e s s io n o f D r u gP a r a p h e r n a lia i n 1 99 9 (t w i c e ) , Pos s e s s i o n o f M ar ij uana i n 20 00 , Po s s e s s i o n o f D r ug Parapher nal i a i n 2000 (t w i c e) , E vadi ng D et ent i on i n 2001, P o s s e s s io n o f aF ir e a r m a s afe lo n in2 0 0 2 , D is o r d e r lyC o n d u c t in 200 3, P osses si onof

M arij u an a i n200 4, an d the current of fen se [of possessi on of

cr ack c ocai n e] i n 200 4 (w i t h i n t w o years of an earl i er rel ease f

rom pri son), as w el la s n u m erous D rivi n g u n der S u spen ded L ic e n s e in c id e n ts .” In vi ew of

t h i s ext en sive cri m i n alhi st ory an d the factt h at G reen com m i t t ed
m u ltiple d i scipli n a ryi n fracti on s i n pr i son , the distri ct cou rt did n ot ab u se it s d is c r e tio n ind e n y in gth e re q u e s te dre d u c tio n . AF F I RMED.