### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

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

a mendments to the crack cocaine Guidelines. Freeman’s current convic t i o n s include one count of conspiracy to distrib u t e and possess with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochlori de an d m arijuana 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 U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 7, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-30650 Document: 00511657011 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2011No. 10-30650

used to double the mandat o ry minimum sentences he faced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) and (B). He maintains that, i n l i gh t o f the amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, his prior conviction should not have been used to enhance the s t a t u t o ry minimum sentences. Freeman also contends that the district court failed to assess adequately the 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 5 3 (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 discre t i o n . 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

wer e n o t c al culated 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 C i r. 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 h a d r e s u l t e d in the prior conviction. Freeman has not shown that the amendments to the Guidelines a ffect 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 c o ntention that the district court should have considered vario u s 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 lac k s discretion to reduce a sentence any further than the reduction allowed under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, p.s. Id. ; Unit e d St a t es 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: 11/07/2011No. 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