### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 10-31164 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee

v. HENRY L. GREEN, also known as Squally, Defendant - Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:98-CR-20058-4

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Henry L. Green, federal prisoner # 09949-03 5 , i s serving a term of life imprisonment for his convictio n of conspiring to possess with the intent to distrib u t e c ocaine base. Concurrently, he is serving two 360-month terms of imprisonment imposed for convictions of di s t ributing cocaine base. Green appeals the district c o u rt ’ s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reducti o n of his sentences based on amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the Sentencing Guideline for crack cocaine offenses. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June24 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-31164 Document: 00511520520 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2011No. 10-31164

“Section 3 5 8 2 (c) (2) permits a district court to reduce a term of imprisonment when it is based upon a sentencing range that has subsequently been low e r e d b y an amendment to the Guidelines, if such a reduction is consistent with the policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas , 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing 18 U

. S

. C

. § 3582(c)(2)). We review a district court’s denial of a reduction un d e r Section 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion, its interpretation of the Guidelines de novo , and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Green has not shown that the district court erred in determining that he

was ineligible for a reduction of sentence. Green was sentenced for his

co n s p ir a c y conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), which mandates a minimum term of life imprisonment for defendants with two or more prior felony drug convictions. Application of the amendments to the crack cocaine Guideline would not lower his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment for that offense. See United States v. Pardue , 36 F.3d 429, 431 (5th C ir . 1 9 94). Application of the amendments also would not lower Green’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines r a nge for his distribution offenses. If the amendments reduced Green’s offense level as calculated under Section 2D1.1 from 38 to 36, his career offender offense level of 37 would govern the sentencing calculation. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). With a criminal history category of VI, Green’s sentencing range of 360 months to life imprisonment would remain unchanged. If application of an amend m e nt r e duces a defendant’s base offense level but does not alter the sentencing guideline range on which his sentence was based, Section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence. Id. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s. Thus, the district court had no authority to reduce Green’s sentences and no basis on which to consider whether to exercise its discretion to grant a sentence reduction. Id. § 1B1.10(a), p.s. AFFIRMED.
2 Case: 10-31164 Document: 00511520520 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2011