United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-30091

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Dontour D. Drakes, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:13-CR-90-2

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Dontour D. Drakes, federal prisoner # 16320-035, appeals the denial 

of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on 

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines and the First Step Act. We 

review the district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 14, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-30091 Document: 00515602181 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2020
No. 20-30091

2

§ 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 

713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315, 319 

& n.2 (5th Cir. 2019) (First Step Act), cert. denied, 2020 WL 1906710 (U.S. 

Apr. 20, 2020) (No. 19-8036).

With respect to the district court’s denial of Drakes’s motion for 

sentence reduction under Amendment 782, this amendment altered the 

Drug Quantity Table set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) by effectively lowering 

most drug-related base offense levels by two levels. See U.S.S.G. App. C, 

Supp. to Amend. 782. However, because Drakes’s offense level was 

determined based on the career offender guideline, rather than based on the 

quantity of drugs involved in the offense, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(c)(2), 

Amendment 782 did not reduce his base offense level or his guidelines 

sentencing range, see United States v. Quintanilla, 868 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 

2017). Consequently, because Amendment 782 did “not have the effect of 

lowering [Drakes’s] applicable guideline range,” Drakes was ineligible for a 

reduction under § 3582(c)(2). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).

As to the district court’s denial of Drakes’s motion for a sentence 

reduction based on the First Step Act, “Section 404 of the First Step Act 

concerns the application of [the] Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.” United States 

v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414, 416 (5th Cir.) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 285 (2019). A defendant is eligible 

for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act if: (1) he committed a 

“‘covered offense,’” which is defined as “a violation of a Federal criminal 

statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified by section 2 or 3 of 

the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 . . . that was committed before August 3, 

2010;” and (2) his sentence was not previously imposed or reduced pursuant 

to the Fair Sentencing Act and he did not previously file a motion under the 

First Step Act which was denied on the merits. See Pub. L. No. 115-391, 

§ 404(a), (c); 132 Stat. 5194, 5222; Hegwood, 934 F.3d at 416-17. Because 

Case: 20-30091 Document: 00515602181 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/14/2020
No. 20-30091

3

Drakes’s offense was not committed before August 3, 2010, the Fair 

Sentencing Act already applied to him and the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by denying his motion for a sentence reduction. See Pub. L. No. 

115-391, § 404(a).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-30091 Document: 00515602181 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/14/2020