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

No. 18

- 40009 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOHNNIE DOGGINS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07

- CR

- 250

- 1

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Proceeding pro se , J ohnnie Doggins contests the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to re duce his sentence based on amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines for drug offenses. Doggins was convicted of two counts of distribution of cocaine base and one count of possession wit h intent to
distribute cocaine base , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) . Alt hough the Guideline s sentencing range was 121 to 151 months’ imprisonment, Doggins

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 28, 2018 Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 18-40009 Document: 00514776935 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2018N o. 18

- 40009

2 was sentenced to the statutory minimum of 240 months

. This court affirme d
his conviction and sentence on appeal

. United States v. Doggins , 633 F.3d 379, 384 (5th Cir. 2011). Doggins asserts that , under Amendments 750 and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, he is entitled to a reduction in his sentence. Section 3582(c)(2) grants the district court the discretion to reduce a defendant’s sentence if he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that subsequently was lowered by the Sentencing Commission , if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3 582(c)(2). When faced with a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court first considers whether movant is eligible for a sentence reduction under Guideline § 1B1.10

. Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). If the court determines defendant is eligible, it must then consider the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors to decide whether a reduction “is warranted in whole or in part under the parti cular circumstances of the case ”

. Id . at 827. Revi ew of a district court’s authority to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) is de novo

. United States v. Jones , 596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted)

. On the other hand, r eview of the court’s discretionary decision whether to deny a m otion for reduction of a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is for abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson , 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). The policy statement provide d in Guideline § 1B1.10 dictates the court may reduce defendant ’ s term of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(2) “ [i] n a case in which a defendant is serving a term of imprisonment, and the [ G ] uideline s range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines

. . . ”

. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1)

. The phrase “[G] uideline [s] range applicable” includes a statutory minimum Case: 18-40009 Document: 00514776935 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2018N o. 18

- 40009

3 sentence when it applies. United States v. Carter , 595 F.3d 575, 580

– 81 (5th Cir. 2010). Thus, for defendants sentenced un der Guideline § 5G1.1(b) (“ Where a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily required maximum sentence shall be the guideline sentence

. ”) , the applicable G uideline s range is the man datory minimum sentence “even [though] it involves a ‘range’ of only one n umber ”

. See id. at 5 81. Doggins is not entitled to a reduction in sentence because application of Amendment s 750 and 782 do es not lower his applicable G uideline s range

. See Guideline § 1 B1.10(d) cmt. n.1 (A)

. As stated, his current term of imprisonment is based upon a statutory minimum sentence. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2009); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b ). As such, his applicable G uideline s range is the statutory
minimum sentence

. See Carter , 595 F.3d at 577

– 81 . Neither a mendment
lowe r s that minimum sentence. Thus, the cour t did not err in concluding Doggins is in eligible for a reduction in sentence under § 3582(c)(2). See Guideline § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1 (A)

. To the extent Doggins contends he is eligible for relief from the statutory mandatory minimum sentence under a retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act, his claims are likewise unava iling and are foreclosed by our
decision in Doggins , 6 33 F.3d at 384. AFFIRMED. Case: 18-40009 Document: 00514776935 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2018