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, Johnnie Doggins contests the denial of his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce 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 with intent to 

distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Although the 

Guidelines sentencing range was 121 to 151 months’ imprisonment, Doggins 

 

* 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

December 28, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40009 Document: 00514776935 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2018
No. 18-40009

2

was sentenced to the statutory minimum of 240 months. This court affirmed 

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. § 3582(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 particular 

circumstances of the case”. Id. at 827. 

Review 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, review of the court’s discretionary 

decision whether to deny a motion 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 provided 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]uidelines

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: 12/28/2018
No. 18-40009

3

sentence when it applies. United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575, 580–81 (5th 

Cir. 2010). Thus, for defendants sentenced under 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 Guidelines range is the mandatory 

minimum sentence “even [though] it involves a ‘range’ of only one number”. 

See id. at 581.

Doggins is not entitled to a reduction in sentence because application of 

Amendments 750 and 782 does not lower his applicable Guidelines range. See

Guideline § 1B1.10(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 Guidelines range is the statutory 

minimum sentence. See Carter, 595 F.3d at 577–81. Neither amendment

lowers that minimum sentence. Thus, the court did not err in concluding

Doggins is ineligible 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 unavailing and are foreclosed by our

decision in Doggins, 633 F.3d at 384. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-40009 Document: 00514776935 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2018