### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCUIT

N o. 08- 61098 U N IT E D S T A T E S O F AM E R IC A , P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l ee v. JAM E S A B D U L S M IT H , 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 fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i B ef ore G A R Z A , D eM O S S , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. E M ILIO M . G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg e: Jam es Abd u lS m i th , federalpri soner #04 751
- 043 , w as convi ct ed bya j u ry of att em pti n g t o possess w i t h i n t en t t o di st ribu t e cocai n e base. H i s gui del i n es r ange o f

262 t o 3 27 m ont hs w as c al c ul at ed u n d er the 1 997 G ui deli nes ; he w as sentenced to 262 m on t h s i m pri sonm en t . I n 200 8, S m i t h m ovedfora reducti on i n hi s s en t en ce un der 18 U . S . C . § 3582 (c) ( 2) based on th e U n i t ed S t ates S en t en ci n g C om m i ssi on ’ s am en dm en ts to the ba se of fen se l evel s f

or c rack c o c a i n e . S ee U. S . S . G. S u p p . t o Ap p ’ x C, Am e n d . 7 0 6 . Th e d i s t r i c t c o u r tfo und t hatt he a m e nde d g ui de l i ne s r ang e w o ul d ha veb e e n 2 10 t o 2 62 m ont hs , b ut decl i n ed to redu ce Sm i t h ’ s s en t en ce based on hi s r ecord of 19 p ri son d i scipl i n ary vi ol ati on s. Sm i t h t i m ely soug h trec on si derati on , w h i ch w as den i ed. S m i t h t h en t i m e ly ap pe al e d. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D Februar y 3, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-61098 Document: 00511019608 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 08- 61098

2 W e revi ew a deci si on “w h et h er t o reduce a sentence u n der § 3582 (c) ( 2) f or a b u se o f d i scre ti on . ” Uni t e d St at e sv . Evan s , 5 8 7 F .3d6 6 7 , 6 7 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). (cit ati on om i t t ed). W e revi ew a court’ s i n t erpret ati on of t h e gu i del i n es de nov o. Un itedS ta tes v. D o u b lin , 5 7 2 F .3 d2 3 5 , 2 3 7 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 130 S. C t . 517 (2 0 0 9 ). Sm i t h’ s f

i r s ta r gum e nt , t hatde nyi ng a r e duc t i o n und e rt he c r ac k c o c ai ne am en dm en t s i gn ores t h e “ com pel l i n g n eed” t o add ress sentenci n g di spari t i es, am ou n t s t o a request th at w e m ak e m an da t ory a sentenci n g redu ct i on , at l east w he n r e que s t e d p ur s uantt o t he c r ac k c o c ai ne am e ndm e nt s . Ther e i s si m ply no b a s is to d o s o . S ee 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ); U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 ; Uni t e d S t at e sv. W h i t ebi rd , 5 5 F .3d1 0 0 7 , 1 0 0 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). S m ith a ls o co n te n d s th a t t h e d is tr ic t co u r t sh o u ld n o t h a v e co n s id e r e dh is p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r yr e c o r di n d e c i d i n gt o d e n yr e l i e f u n d e r§ 3 5 8 2 (c ) ( 2 ) . H e a c k n o w le d g e s th a t A p p lic a tio n N o te 1 ( B ) (i ii) to U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 e x p lic itly a l l ow s a co u rt t o con sider“po st- sen ten ci n g con d u ct” i n de term i n i n g w h eth er to redu ce th e sentence an d the extent of an y such reducti on . H e non et h el ess argu es, based on non - bi n di n gc a se s from ot h er c ou rt s, t h at th e di st ri ctcourt shou l d n otha ve consi dered p ost - sentenci n g cond u ctbecau se th e B u reau of P ri sons can add ress m i scondu ctt h rough eli m i n ati on of “ goodt i m e” cr edi tan d/or th e g o v e r n m e n t ca n p r o s e c u te in m a te c r im e s . See, e . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mi l ler , N o . 3 : 0 1
- CR- 1 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 W L 7 8 2 5 6 6 ( E. D. Te nn . M a r . 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( g r a nt i ng a § 358 2(c) ( 2) sentence reducti on no tw iths t andi n g t w o i n st an ces of post - convic t i on p r is o n s a n c tio n s ); Un ited S ta tes v . Ay a la , 540 F. S upp. 2d 676(W . D . V a. 2008) ( gran t i n g a § 358 2(c)(2 ) sen t en ce r edu ct i on notw i t h st an di n g t w o pri son i nc i dent s — an as s aultw i t ho uts e r i o us i nj ur y andf i ghti ng— i nvo lvi ng t he defenda n t) . N ei t h er Mi l lernor Ay a laca n b e rea das b roa d ly a s S m i thu rg es. In both cases, t h e court s c on si dered p ost - co n v i ct i on condu ctbu tchose t o exerci se t he i rdi s c r e t i o n i n fav o rof a se nt e nc i ng r e duc t i o n. N e i t he rca s e st and s fo rt he p rop ositi on tha t po st- con victi on con d u ct can n o t b e con sider ed . W e d ecli n e to Case: 08-61098 Document: 00511019608 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 08- 61098

3 ho l d t hat a di s t r i c t c o ur tc anno tc o ns i de rpo s t - c o nvic t i o n c o nduc ti n de t e r m i ni ng w h e th e rto g r a n t as e n te n c in gr e d u c tio n u n d e r§ 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ). T o d o s o w o u ldfly i n t he fac e o f

pl ai n l anguag e t hat“t he c o ur tm ayc o ns i de rpo s t - s e nt en ci ng c o nduc t. . . i n de t e r m i ni ng . . . [w ] he t h er ar e duc t i o n . . . i s w ar r ant e d . . . a nd th e e x te n t o f s u c h re d u c tio n .” U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 cm t. n .1 (B )(iii); seealso 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ). T h e d i stri ct cou rt d i d n ot a b u se its d i scre ti on i n con sider i n g S m i th ’ s p ostc o nvic t i o n di s c i pli nary r e c o r d of so m e 19 di s c i pli nary ac t i o ns . Ac c o r di ngly, t he d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED. Case: 08-61098 Document: 00511019608 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/03/2010