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 UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30748 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. D A R V IN RAYP H IL L IP S , a ls o k n o w n a s C a d illa c , D efen d a n t–A p p ell a n t.
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: 00- C R

- 10002- 1

B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * D arvi n R ay P h i l l i ps, federalpri soner #6 233 9- 079 , app eal s t h e den i alof hi s 1 8 U
. S. C. § 3 58 2(c ) ( 2) m o t i o n f o rar e duc t i o n o f

s e nt e nc e b as e d o n t he N o ve m be r1 , 2 00 7, r e t r o ac t ivea m e ndm e nt s t o U
. S. S. G

. § 2 D 1. 1, t he Se nt e nc i ng G u i del i n e pert ai n i n g t o cr ack c o c aine of fen ses. Ph i l l i ps w as ori gi n al l y sentenced t o 262 m on t h s of i m pri sonm en t f ol l ow i n g h i s c on vi ct i on f or c on spi racy t o possess w i t h i n t en tt o di st ribu t e coc ai n e hy drochlor i de an d co ca i n e base. H ow ever, p u rsu a n t t o a R u l e 3 5 m oti on , P h i l l i p s’ s sen ten ce w a s red u cedby40 pe rcen t, United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 17, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-30748 Document: 00511029060 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 08- 30748

2 r e s ul t i ng i n a n a m e nde d s en t en c e o f 1 58 m o nt hs o f

i m pr i s o nm e nt
. Ci t i ng U
. S. S. G

. § 1B 1. 10(b) ( 2) ( B ) , Ph i l l i ps c ont ends t hatt he di st r i c tc our ts houl d have red u ced h i s 15 8 -m on th sen ten ce b y 4 0 pe rcen t to 1 2 6 m on th s of i m p ri son m en t. Ph i l l i ps fu r t h e ra r g u e s t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i dn o tr e fe r e n c e t h e 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 55 3( a) fac t o r s o rpr o vi de a ny e xp l ana t i o n f o rt he s e nt e nc e i m po s e d. Adistri ct cou rt m a y re d u ce a term of i m p ri son m en t pu rsu a n t t o § 358 2(c) ( 2) if

i ti s based u pon a sentenci n g ran ge t h at has s u b se q u e n t l y been l o we r e db ya n a m e n d m e n tt o t h e Gu i d e l i n e s , a n dt h e r e d u c t i o n i s c o n s i s t e nt
w ith th e p o li cy sta te m e n ts iss u e db yth e S e n te n cin gC o m m iss ion
. § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ). W e revi ew a di st ri ct court’ s den i al of a redu ct i on u n der § 358 2(c) ( 2) f or an ab u se of di scr et i on , i t s i n t erpret ati on of t h e G u i del i n es de novo, an d i t s f i n di n gs of

fact fo rcle a re r r o r . Uni t e d St at e s v . Evan s , 5 8 7 F .3da t 6 6 7 , 6 7 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). P h ill ip s h a s n o t s h o w n th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e dits d is c r e tio n in deci di n g n ot t o redu ce h i s sentence f u rt h er orw i t h res pect t o it s c on si derati on of t h e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors orrea s o n s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cooley , 590 F. 3d 293, 2 9 7 -9 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ); Evans , 5 87 F
. 3da t6 73-74. A ccor di n gl y, t h e j u dg m en tof t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED. Case: 08-30748 Document: 00511029060 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2010