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, amend. 782. 

 

* 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

January 21, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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

sentenced under the career offender guidelines. See United States v. 

Quintanilla, 868 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2017). On 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, we conclude that Hall is ineligible for relief 

under § 3582(c)(2) for a different reason, 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) permits the 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 for 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 sentenced on September 12, 2016, well after the effective date of the

amendment, and the 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: 01/21/2020
No. 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 omitted). 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