### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 20124 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
B RYAN 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. 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: 02/10/2017No. 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 r emanded 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 omit ted). 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 2 8 U.S.C. § 2111; F ED

. R. C RIM

. 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 a pplicable 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 base d 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 Anders on 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: 02/10/2017No. 16

- 20124

3 A § 3582(c)(2) motion i s not the proper vehicle for Maxwell to challenge th e 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 infi rm in light of Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2 551 (2015), as may be addressed by the Supreme Court i n 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