IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20124

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BRYAN MAXWELL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:90-CR-97-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Bryan Maxwell, federal prisoner # 50539-079, appeals the district court’s 

denial of his motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 484 to the 

Sentencing Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We review de novo the 

district court’s authority to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United 

States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010); see also Dillon v. United 

States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010).

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 10, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20124 Document: 00513870848 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2017
No. 16-20124

2

Maxwell argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying 

his motion without stating reasons and that his case should be remanded for 

such a statement. “[A] court is not required to state findings of facts and 

conclusions of law when denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion.” United States v. 

Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and 

footnote citation omitted). Even assuming that the district court was required 

to state its reasons for denying Maxwell’s motion, any error is harmless since, 

as addressed below, Maxwell is clearly ineligible for relief. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2111; FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(a).

A defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction if the applicable 

guidelines range is lowered by an amendment to the Guidelines listed in 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), p.s., such as Amendment 484. See § 1B1.10(a), (d). A 

defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction if the listed amendment “does 

not have the effect of lowering the applicable guidelines range.” 

§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).

Maxwell’s sentence was not based on the drug quantity table in § 2D1.1 

that was amended by Amendment 484. His sentence was based on the career 

offender guideline, U.S.S.G § 4B1.1 (Nov. 1, 1987). When Maxwell was 

sentenced, the career offender guideline provided (as it does now) that if the 

career offender offense level is greater than an “otherwise applicable” offense 

level, the career offender offense level “shall apply.” § 4B1.1. Thus, he was 

ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction. See United States v. Anderson, 

591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir. 2009). Maxwell has cited no precedential or 

persuasive authority that Anderson is no longer the applicable law in this 

circuit. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Maxwell’s motion. 

See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826; Jones, 596 F.3d at 276.

 Case: 16-20124 Document: 00513870848 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2017
No. 16-20124

3

A § 3582(c)(2) motion is not the proper vehicle for Maxwell to challenge 

the application of the career offender guidelines, either because he does not 

have a qualifying offense, as addressed on direct appeal in United States v. 

Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2016), or because the career offender guideline 

is constitutionally infirm in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 

(2015), as may be addressed by the Supreme Court in Beckles v. United States, 

136 S. Ct. 2510 (2016) (granting petition for writ of certiorari).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-20124 Document: 00513870848 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/10/2017