Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50384 Su m m ar y Cal 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. ER I C DE S HON B OL DE 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 ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 1 : 0 3 - CR- 1 7 1 - ALL B ef ore SM ITH , ST E W A R T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * E ri c D eShon B ol den, fede r al pri so ner # 28935- 180, pl ed gui l t y t o pos se ss i on w i t h i nt entt o di st r ibut e co c ai ne base , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841, an d m on ey l au n deri n g, i n vi ol ati on of 18 U . S . C . § 1956 . H e w as sen t en ced as a c a r e e ro ffe n d e rp u r s u a n tto U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 . B o ld e n a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s den i alof

h i s 18 U . S . C . § 358 2(c) ( 2) m ot i on f or a r edu ct i on of

sentence based on t h e U n i t ed S t ates S en t en ci n g C om m i ssi on ’ s ad opti on of A m en dm en t706 , w h i ch m o dif i e d the s e nt e nc i ng r ang e s a ppli c ab l e t o c r ac k c o c ai ne o f fe ns e s t o r e duc e t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50384

2 d is p a r ityb e tw e e n cr a c kco c a in e a n dp o w d e rco c a in e s e n te n c e s . S eeU . S. S ENT ENC I NG G UIDELI NES M ANUAL , supp. t o a pp. C , am end. 706, pp. 226- 31 (N ov. 1 , 2 0 0 7 ) (a m e n d in gU .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 (c )).

“ S ect i on 358 2(c)(2 ) p e rm i t s a di st 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 du p o n a s e n te n c in gr a n g e t h 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 t h 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 at e s v . G o nzalez - Bal de r as , 1 05 F. 3d9 81 , 9 82 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 7) . The dec i si on w het her t o r educ e a se nt enc e underSec t i on 3582(c ) ( 2) i s di sc r et i onar y, andw e r e vi e w t he den i alo f aSe c t i o n 3 58 2 m o t i o n f o ra bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n. Un i t ed S t ate s v. B oe , 1 1 7 F .3d 8 3 0 , 8 3 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). B ol den argu es that the di st ri ctcourtabu sed i t s di scr et i on w h en itden i ed hi s m ot i on f

ora r educ t i on o f

s ent enc e. H e a r gues t hat h i s sen te nce s houl d be redu ced un der A m en dm en t706 becau se, t h ou gh he w as s e n ten ced un der U . S .S. G . § 4B 1. 1, w h i ch ap pl i es t o careerof fen ders, t h at s en t en ce i s no l on ger m an da t ory. Th eref ore, B ol den argu es t h at he i s f ree t o ha ve h i s s en t en ce redu ced af

t er A m en dm en t 706 . H e al so argu es t h at a m an da t ory app l i cat i on of th e p o lic ys ta te m e n ts s e t fo r th inU .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 w o u ldv io la te th e p la in l anguage of

S ec t i on 3582(c ) ( 2) , the di st r i c tc our t ’ s obli gat i on t o c ons i dert he 18 U . S. C. § 3 55 3( a) fac t o r s , a nd t he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s de c i s i o ns i n Uni t e d S t at e s v. B ooker , 5 43 U . S . 220 ( 20 05 ) , a nd Ki m brough v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 128 S. C t . 558 (2 0 0 7 ). B o ld e n h a s n o t s h o w n th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r ta b u s e dits d is c r e tio n in de nyi ng hi s m o t i o n f o rar e duc t i o n o f

s e nt e nc e . Bec aus e Bol de n’ s g ui del i ne ran ge w as d erivedfr om h i s stat u s as a career of fen der an d n otthe qu an t i t y of c r ac k c o c ai ne i nvo lve d i n t he o f fe ns e , he w as no ts e nt e nc e d b as e d o n a s e nt e nc i ng r ang e t hatw as s ubs e que nt l y l o w e r e db yth eS e n t e n c i n g Com m i s s i o n. S ee18 U . S . C . § 3582 (c) ( 2) . Fu rt h er, t o the extent B ol den argu es t h at th e di st ri ct c o ur tha d the di s c r e t i o n t o r e duc e hi s s e nt e nc e und e rSe c t i o n 3 58 2(c ) ( 2) i n li ghtN o. 08- 50384

3 o f B ooker , th e argu m en ti s un ava i l i n g becau se B ookerw as no t“ba s e d o n a retroa ctive a m en d m en t to the G u i d eli n es.” S ee Uni t e d St at e s v . Shaw , 30 F. 3d 26 , 2 9 ( 5t h C i r . 199 4) . The d i s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no ta bus e i t s di s c r e t i o n i n de nyi ng B ol den ’ s m ot i on f

or a r edu ct i on of

sentence. Bol de n a l s o a r gue s t hathi s o r i ginals e nt e nc e w as il l e ga lb e c aus e t he di s t r i c tc o ur te nhan c e d hi s se nt e nc e bas e d on t he c ar e e ro f fe nde rpr o vi s i o n o f

t he S en ten ci n g G u i d eli n es w i th ou t a j u ryde term i n a tio n or a d m i ssion of th e facts n ecess ary f

or th e enh an cem en t . Th i s argum en ti s n otrel evan tt o an app ealf rom t he deni alof

a m ot i on f

or re d u cti on of

s ent enc e pur suantt o Sec t i on 3582(c ) ( 2) a n dw ill n o t b e a d d r e s s e d . AF F I RMED.