### 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 forty

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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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

### FILED April 27, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-60403 Document: 00513483332 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2016No. 15

- 60403

2 forgery offense. In December 2014, Farmer moved for a sentence reduction und er 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 S tates v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009)

. Farmer argues that A mendm ent 782 to the sentencing g uidelines entitles him to a sentence reduction. A n 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 tha t [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 t he 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 , a nd h is sentencing range was calculated under th e 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 elig ible for a sentence reduction. T he 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 o nly the Attorney General, th rough 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: 04/27/2016No. 15

- 60403

3 the computati ons of his credit, and, once he has exhausted his administr ative 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 )

. T he district court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief that it had no authority to give.
T he judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

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