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 th i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e li 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 UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10525 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l ee v. DOU GLAS RAYDUN KI NS, J R 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 N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 92- C R - 10- 3 B ef ore K IN G , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IAM: * D ou gl as R ay D u n kins, Jr. , federalpri soner # 226 19-077, w as convi ct ed of of con sp i ra cy to d i strib u te an dpo sse ss w i thi n ten t t o d i strib u te coca i n e a n dto m an u fact u re, t o possess w i t h i n t en tt o di st ribu t e, an d to di st ribu t e coc ai n e base (c r a c kc o c a in e ) i n v i o la t io n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . H e a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s den i alof

his 18 U . S . C . § 3582 (c) ( 2) m ot i on f or a r edu ct i on of

hi s s en t en ce. W e revi ew f

or an a bu se of

d i scr et i on the di st ri ctcou rt ’ s deci si on w h et h er United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D April15, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10525

2 to r e d u c e a s e n te n c e u n d e r§ 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ). Uni t e d St at e sv . Shaw , 30 F. 3d 26, 28 ( 5t h C i r . 1995) . The c our t “ m ay not m odif y a t er m of i m pri so nm ent onc e i thas b e e n im p o s e de x c e p t” ince r ta in cir c u m s t a n c e s . § 3 5 8 2 (c ). T h e co u r t is aut hor i ze d t o re duce a t er m of i m pri so nm entif

t he def endant ’ s se nt enc i ng r ange has b e e n l o w e r e d b y t he Se nt e nc i ng Com m i s s i o n’ s a m e ndm e ntt o th eS e n t e n c i ng G u i del i n es. § 358 2(c) ( 2) ; U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 10(a) , p. s. In g e n e r a l, A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 re d u c e dth e b a s e o ffe n s ele v e ls s e t fo r th in U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1 .1(c) app l i cabl e t o cr ack cocai n e of fen ses. H ow ever, t h e base o ffe n s e le v e l fo ro ffe n s e s in v o lv in g4 .5 k ilo g r a m s o rm o r e o f cr a c kco c a in e is u n cha n ged . D u n kins w as held acc ou n t able f or m ore than 2 0 kil ogram s of cr ack cocai n e. A s a resul t of a pri or r et roact ive am en dm en tt o t h e G u i del i n es, hi s base o ffe n s e le v e l w a s 3 8 . U n d e r t h e n e w a m e n d m e n t s t o § 2 D 1 .1 (c )( 1 ), D u n k i n s ’s bas e o f fens e l eve lre m a i n s 38. Thu s, hi s bas e o f fens e l eve li s unaf

fec t ed by A m en dm en t706 t o § 2D 1. 1(c) a n d , concom i t an t ly, t h e app l i cabl e gu i del i n es ran ge of i m pri sonm en tw as not l ow ered as a res u l tof t h e am en dm en t . B ecau se § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) a u th o r iz e s as e n te n c e re d u c tio n o n lyw h e n th e s e n te n c in gra n g e is l ow ere dbyan am en d m en t to th e G u i d eli n es, th e d i stri ct cou rt did n ot ab u se it s di scr et i on i n den yi n g D u n kins’ s m ot i on f or a r edu ct i on of

sentence. To t he e xt e ntt hatD unki ns a r gu es that t he di s t r i c tc o ur tha d the d iscr e tion to r e d u ce h is se n te n ce u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ) inth e li g h t of Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 2 20 ( 20 05 ) , w e dono tr e ac h t hi s a r gum e ntb e c aus e D unki ns is n o t elig ib le fo r ase n te n ce re d u ctio n p u rs u a n t to § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ). D u n kins’ s m ot i on f

or f u rt h e r r el i ef, seeki n g t o cor recthi s presentence r e p o r t , i s DE NI ED . AF F I RMED.