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

No. 19

- 10426 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
DAMON HALL , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 82

- 1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Damon Hall , federal prisoner # 54125

- 177 , appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He seeks the reduction of his sentence under Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines , which provides for a two

- level reduction in the base offense level for certain drug offenses. See U.S.S.G. , App . C, a mend. 78 2

.

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 January 21, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10426 Document: 00515278684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2020No. 19

- 10426

2 The district court denied Hall’s § 3582(c)(2) motion because it found that Hall had been sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 . The base offense level reductions of Amendment 782 do not apply to defendants who are
senten ced under the career offender guidelines

. See United States v. Quintanilla , 868 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2017). O n direct appeal, however, we held that the district court erred when it concluded that Hall qualified as a career offender, although we ultimately concluded that the error was harmless and affirmed the judgment

. See United States v . Hall , 698 F. App’x 217, 218 (5th Cir. 2017). Nevertheless , w e conclude that Hall is ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2) for a different reas on , and we therefore affirm the district court’s order on alternate grounds

. See United States v. McSween , 53 F.3d 684, 687 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995) (“[W]e can affirm the lower court’s decision on any grounds supported by the record.”). Section 3582(c)(2) perm its th e district court to modify a sentence “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission

. ” § 3582(c)(2). A defendant is eligible f or a sentence reduction if the guideline range originally applicable to him has subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines Manual. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). Amendment 782 became effective on November 1, 2014. Hall

was sen tenced on September 12, 2016, well after the effective date of th e amendment , and t he 2015 Guidelines Manual, which incorporated Amendment 782, was used to calculate Hall’s sentencing range under the guidelines . Therefore, Hall has not shown that his term of imprisonment was based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by Amendment 782 , and he is not entitled to a modification of his sentence on that basis

. See § 3582(c)(2) ; § 1B1.10(a)(1), & cmt . n.1(A)

. Case: 19-10426 Document: 00515278684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2020No. 19

- 10426

3 Both in the district court and on appeal, Hall raised various other challenges to his sentence and to the district court’s factual conclusions

. A proceeding under § 3582(c)(2) is not a full resentencing, Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 825

– 26 (2010 ), and it “is not the appropriate vehicle for raising issues related to the original sentencing” that could have been raised on direct appeal, United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitt ed)

. Therefore, Hall has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by declining to address these arguments and reconsider the findings it made at his sentencing hearing. AFFIRMED. Case: 19-10426 Document: 00515278684 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/21/2020