IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30650

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMES FREEMAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:05-CR-29-1

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Freeman, federal prisoner # 23560-034, appeals the district court’s

denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion to reduce his sentence following

amendments to the crack cocaine Guidelines. Freeman’s current convictions

include one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute cocaine hydrochloride and marijuana and one count of possession with

intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride and marijuana. He asserts, however,

that he is entitled to a reduction because his prior crack cocaine conviction was

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 7, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-30650 Document: 00511657011 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2011
No. 10-30650

used to double the mandatory minimum sentences he faced under 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(A) and (B). He maintains that, in light of the amendments to the

Sentencing Guidelines, his prior conviction should not have been used to

enhance the statutory minimum sentences. Freeman also contends that the

district court failed to assess adequately the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,

particularly the need to avoid sentencing disparities, in determining whether he

merited a lower sentence.

The district court’s denial of Freeman’s § 3582(c)(2) motion is reviewed for

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.

2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2010). Because Freeman’s instant sentences

were not calculated based on a quantity of crack cocaine, the guidelines

amendments do not apply to his case. See United States v. Burns, 526 F.3d 852,

861 (5th Cir. 2008). Although Freeman’s statutory sentencing range was

increased based on his prior conviction involving crack cocaine, he received the

enhancement based on the existence of the prior felony drug conviction, rather

than the type or quantity of drug that had resulted in the prior conviction. 

Freeman has not shown that the amendments to the Guidelines affect the

statutory minimum sentences, and he is not entitled to a reduction because he

received the minimum possible sentences. See United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d

575, 579-81 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Regarding Freeman’s contention that the district court should have

considered various equitable factors from his original sentencing, § 3582(c)(2)

proceedings are not full resentencings. Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683,

2690-94 (2010). The principles of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),

and its progeny do not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, and a sentencing court

lacks discretion to reduce a sentence any further than the reduction allowed

under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, p.s. Id.; United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238

(5th Cir. 2009). Because Freeman was ineligible for a reduction under

2

Case: 10-30650 Document: 00511657011 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2011
No. 10-30650

§ 3582(c)(2), the district court was not required to address whether the § 3553(a)

factors warranted a reduction. See Dillon, 130 S. Ct. at 2691-92. 

The judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED. Freeman’s motion

to amend his appellate brief is GRANTED.

3

Case: 10-30650 Document: 00511657011 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/07/2011