IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10296

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HAMID REZA SAYADI-TAKHTEHKAR,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:96-CR-41-6

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hamid Reza Sayadi-Takhtehkar, federal prisoner # 38137-054, was 

convicted in 1997 of conspiring to import one kilogram or more of heroin, 

conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute one kilogram 

or more of heroin, and tampering with a witness, and he was sentenced within 

the applicable guidelines sentencing range to 365 months of imprisonment. In 

his instant appeal, Sayadi-Takhtehkar challenges the district court’s denial of 

 

* 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

November 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10296 Document: 00513768260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2016
No. 16-10296

2

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction in his sentence in light of 

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

Sayadi-Takhtehkar argues that the district court erred in determining 

that his base offense level (BOL) remained 38 under the amended 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) and that he is therefore ineligible for relief. He maintains 

that he should have been held accountable for only 23.91 kilograms of heroin 

at sentencing and that, using that lower amount, Amendment 782 does have 

the effect of lowering his guidelines sentencing range. Sayadi-Takhtehkar’s

argument that the district court erred in determining drug quantity for 

purposes of calculating his BOL prior to his original sentencing is not 

cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United States v. Hernandez, 645 

F.3d 709, 711-12 (5th Cir. 2011). All of Sayadi-Takhtehkar’s remaining 

arguments go to whether the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 

sentencing factors, whether it properly weighed those factors, and whether it 

stated that it had considered those factors.

The Sentencing Guidelines specifically instruct that only the new 

Guideline provision should be substituted into the guidelines calculation and 

that “all other guideline application decisions” shall remain unaffected. 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1). Sayadi-Takhtehkar was held responsible at 

sentencing for in excess of 90 kilograms of heroin. Under the revised version 

of § 2D1.1(c), his BOL would remain a 38, and the amendment thus did not 

have the effect of lowering his guidelines sentencing range. See § 2D1.1(c)(1) 

Because the district court correctly found that Sayadi-Takhtehkar was 

ineligible for relief, it was not authorized to grant any reduction in his 

sentence. See United States v. Bowman, 632 F.3d 906, 910 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Because the district court did not reach the point of making the discretionary 

determination of whether and to what extent to reduce Sayadi-Takhtehkar’s 

 Case: 16-10296 Document: 00513768260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2016
No. 16-10296

3

sentence, the failure to consider factors that would inform that discretionary 

decision was not error. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010).

Sayadi-Takhtehkar has failed to show that the district court abused its 

discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. United States v. Henderson, 636 

F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). The judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-10296 Document: 00513768260 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/21/2016