IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60403

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANDRE FARMER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:12-CR-166-1

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*

In 2013, Andre Farmer pled guilty to one count of being a felon in 

possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). On 

the government’s motion, the district court granted Farmer a downward 

departure for substantial assistance. Thereafter, it sentenced him to fortyeight months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release, with the 

sentence to run concurrently with an undischarged state court sentence for a 

 

* 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

April 27, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60403 Document: 00513483332 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2016
No. 15-60403

2

forgery offense. In December 2014, Farmer moved for a sentence reduction 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied the motion, and this 

appeal followed. We review the district court’s denial of the motion for an abuse 

of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Farmer argues that Amendment 782 to the sentencing guidelines

entitles him to a sentence reduction. An amendment to the guidelines will 

make a defendant eligible for a sentence reduction only if the defendant was 

“sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that [the 

amendment] lowered.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Amendment 782 lowered by two 

levels the base offense level for most drug offenses in the drug-quantity table 

located at U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c); those changes lowered the applicable sentencing

range for the affected drug offenses. Here, however, Farmer was not convicted 

of a drug offense, nor was his sentencing range based on the drug-quantity 

table. He was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and his 

sentencing range was calculated under the section of the guidelines that 

applies to firearms violations. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). Thus, Farmer was 

not sentenced “based on a sentencing range that [Amendment 782] lowered.” 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Hence Amendment 782 does not make Farmer eligible for 

a sentence reduction. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying 

Farmer relief for which he was ineligible.

Farmer also argues that the district court erred by not ordering that he 

receive proper credit for the time that he was in state custody before he was 

delivered to federal authorities. But 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) authorizes only the 

Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons, to determine a prisoner’s 

credits. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333-35 (1992). “In the event 

that a prisoner feels he has been improperly refused credit for time he has 

served in state custody, the prisoner must first ‘seek administrative review of 

 Case: 15-60403 Document: 00513483332 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2016
No. 15-60403

3

the computations of his credit, and, once he has exhausted his administrative 

remedies, the prisoner may only then pursue judicial review of these 

computations.’” United States v. Setser, 607 F.3d 128, 133 (5th Cir. 2010)

(quoting United States v. Dowling, 962 F.2d 390, 393 (5th Cir. 1992)) 

(alterations omitted). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying 

relief that it had no authority to give.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-60403 Document: 00513483332 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/27/2016