# United States Court of Appeals

f or 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 r educe a sentence under

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 14, 2020
Lyle W. Ca yce Clerk Case: 20-30091 Document: 00515602181 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2020No. 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 Tabl e 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, rathe r 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) . Consequ ently, 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 sent ence 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. de nied , 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 modif ied 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: 10/14/2020No. 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. S ee Pub. L. No.

115

- 391, § 404(a ).

AFFIRMED

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