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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30697

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EUGENE L HUTCHINSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:05-CR-153-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eugene L. Hutchinson, federal prisoner # 29466-034, appeals the district

court’s order granting his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction of

his sentence in light of the recent amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines.

Hutchinson was sentenced originally to a 190-month term of imprisonment, in

the middle of the guidelines imprisonment range. Hutchinson contends that the

district court abused its discretion in resentencing him to a 175-month term of

imprisonment, at the top of the amended guidelines imprisonment range. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 22, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 08-30697 Document: 00511089300 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2010
No. 08-30697

2

Hutchinson argues that the district court failed to consider that the recent

amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines were only a partial remedy of an

unwarranted disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine

offenses. Hutchinson complains that the district court did not give reasons for

its sentence. Hutchinson suggests that he has been infraction-free in prison and

that he has demonstrated his commitment to rehabilitation by completing drug

education and other courses.

In United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for

cert. filed (Jan. 28, 2010) (No. 09-8939), this court held that a district court may

summarily grant or deny a § 3582(c)(2) motion without providing reasons. This

court rejected Evans’s contention that the district court had abused its discretion

in failing to reduce his sentence more, in light of his rehabilitative efforts in

prison. Id. at 673. The court reasoned that the district court, “which was under

no obligation to reduce Evans’s sentence at all, was under no obligation to reduce

it even further within the recalculated range.” Id. (footnote omitted). This court

found the district court’s conclusion “understandable” in light of Evans’s

extensive criminal history. Id. at 673 & n.11. 

The record reflects that Hutchinson was age 23 at the time of the instant

offenses and that, by that time, he already had a substantial criminal history,

with multiple drug offenses and batteries. Hutchinson was on parole at the time

of the offense and the offense was committed less than two years following

Hutchinson’s release from custody related to a prior drug conviction. In

imposing the original sentence, the district court noted Hutchinson’s extensive

criminal history. On this record, Hutchinson cannot show that the district court

abused its discretion in imposing a sentence at the top of the amended guidelines

range. See United States v. Boe, 117 F.3d 830, 831 (5th Cir. 1997). The district

court’s order is AFFIRMED.

Case: 08-30697 Document: 00511089300 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2010