Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould 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 UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 31013 Su m m ar yC al 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. LAW RENCE L EE C HATM AN, 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 ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 1: 04- C R
- 10014- 1 B ef ore K IN G , B A R K S D A L E , an d G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Law r e nc e Le e Chat m an, J r . , fe de r alp r i s o ne r#1 22 74
- 03 5, a ppe al s t he se nt enc e i m pos ed by t he di st r i c t c our t af t ergr ant i ng hi s 18 U . S. C . § 3582(c ) ( 2) m o t i o n f

o rr e duc e d s e nt e nc e b as e d o n t he U ni t e d St at e s Se nt e nc i ng Com m i s s i o n’ s r e troact ive am en dm en tt o t h e base- of fen se l evel s f

or c rac k- c o c aine of fens es . Al t hough t he c ou rt d eter m i ned t hatC hat m an w as s ubj ec tt o a n a m e n d e d -g u id e lin e s ra n g e o f 1 2 0 to 1 3 5 m o n th s , th e co u r t o n lyr e d u c e dh is sentence f

rom 144 to 140 m on t h s’i m pri sonm en t . I n doi n g so, t h e courti n di cat ed United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 10, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-31013 Document: 00511047668 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2010N o. 08- 31013

2 i nco r r ec t l y t hatthe r educ ed se nt enc e w as w i t hi n t he am ended- gui del i nes r ange and i n di c at ed thatt he am ountof t he r educ t i on w as di r ec t l y af fec t ed by C h a tm a n ’ s “po or p ost-i n ca rcera ti on reco rd ”. A di st r i c t c our t ’ s dec i si on w het hert o r educ e as ent enc e i s r evi ew ed f oran a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n ; its in te r p r e ta tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s , de no vo . Un i t ed S t ate s v . Evan s , 587 F . 3d 667 , 672 ( 5th C i r. 200 9) . C h atm an cl ai m s t h e di st ri ctcourt ab us e d it s di s c r e t i o n when itr e duc e d hi s s e n t en ce to a t e r m o f i m pr i s o nm e nt th a t c o n s tit u te da n u p w a r dd e v ia tio n fr o m t h e a m e n d e d -g u id e lin e s ra n g e , w h ile erroneou sly con cl u di n g t h at th e reducedsentence w as w i t h i n t h e am en ded ra n ge . H e m a i n tain s th e se n ten ce re d u cti on w a s ba sed sole lyo n h i s p osti n carcer ati on rec ord, w i t h ou t ref erence t o an y of t h e 18 U . S . C . § 355 3( a) fact ors a n dw ith o u t t a k in gin to a c c o u n t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e p u n is h m e n t fo rh is d is c ip lin a r yin fr a c tio n s . D i st ri ctcourt s are u n der no ob l i gati on t o reduce a defend an t ’ s s en t en ce p u r s u a n t t o § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ). Un itedS ta tes v. D o u b lin , 5 7 2 F .3d 2 3 5 , 2 3 8 (5t h C ir.) , cer t . den i ed , 1 30 S. C t . 5 17 ( 20 09 ) . I n e xe r c i s i ng i t s di s c r e t i o n t o g r ant Chat m an’ s § 3 58 2(c ) ( 2) m o t i o n, ho w e ve r , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t , a s no t e d, c he c ke d a bo x o n t he pr e - pr i nt e d o r de ri ndi c at i ng t hatt he s e nt e nc ei m p o s e d was w i t hi n t he am e nde d- gui de l i ne s r ang e . I f t he di s t r i c tc o ur ti nt e nde d t o de pa r tf r o m t he am e nde d- gui de l i ne s r ang e , i t s ho ul d hav e i ndi c at e d i t w as do i ng s o b y c he c ki ng th e b o xla b e le d“O th e r”. S eeUn itedS ta tes v. Fra n k lin , N o. 08- 30861, 2009 W L 488 496 3, at *2 ( 5th C i r. 18 D ec. 200 9) (u n pu bl i shed ) . Inst ead , t h e di st ri ctcourt e r r o ne o us l y i ndi c at e d t hatChat m an’ s r e duc ed sent e nc e w as “ w i t hi n t he a m e n d e dg u id e lin e ra n g e ”, w h e n it p la in lyw a s n o t. VA CA T ED a n dR EMANDE D. Case: 08-31013 Document: 00511047668 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2010