United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-30694

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Rahsaan Johnson, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:03-CR-135-3

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Rahsaan Johnson, federal prisoner # 23433-034, pleaded guilty to 

three offenses: (1) conspiring to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine 

and 50 grams or more of crack cocaine (Count 1); (2) conspiring to commit 

money laundering (Count 2); and, (3) carrying and using a firearm during and 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 26, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-30694 Document: 00515995802 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2021
No. 20-30694

2

in relation to a drug trafficking crime to commit murder (Count 3). Although 

his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement called for 

life sentences on Count 1 and Count 3, the Government filed a memorandum 

in which it requested reductions in Johnson’s agreed-on sentences due to his 

substantial assistance. Consistent with the Government’s request, the 

district court sentenced Johnson to 300-month terms of imprisonment on 

Count 1 and Count 3, and to a 240-month term of imprisonment on Count 2, 

all to run concurrently.

In the instant matter, Johnson appeals from the denial of his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. As he did in the district court, 

Johnson asserts that he is eligible for a sentence reduction on account of 

Amendment 782. He goes on to contend that, because he is eligible, the 

district court should have considered various possible methods for 

determining the appropriate reduction in his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), p.s. He also argues that a reduction in sentence is 

warranted based on a consideration of the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). 

Generally, we review the district court’s denial of a § 3582(c)(2) 

motion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 

717 (5th Cir. 2011). However, as relevant here, we review de novo whether a 

district court has authority to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2). United 

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

Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a 

defendant’s sentence “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to 

a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently 

been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§] 

994(o) . . . if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements 

issued by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). In determining 

Case: 20-30694 Document: 00515995802 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2021
No. 20-30694

3

whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2), the district court first 

determines whether the defendant is eligible for a sentence modification. 

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). If the district court 

determines that a defendant is eligible, it must then consider the applicable 

§ 3553(a) factors to decide whether a reduction “is warranted in whole or in 

part under the particular circumstances of the case.” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827. 

Here, the record reflects that the probation officer grouped the three 

counts of conviction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c) and determined 

Johnson’s base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1(a), the guideline for 

First Degree Murder. Amendment 782, which “lowered only the [U.S.S.G.] 

§ 2D1.1 drug quantity guideline range,” United States v. Quintanilla, 868 

F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 2017), therefore did not affect Johnson’s guidelines 

range. Because § 2D1.1 was not applicable to Johnson, and Amendment 782 

did not have the effect of lowering Johnson’s applicable guideline range, a 

sentence reduction was not authorized. See Quintanilla, 868 F.3d at 319; 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s. In view of the foregoing, the district court 

did not err in denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Quintanilla, 868 F.3d at 

319.

In his reply brief, Johnson argues for the first time that the district 

court may have not have understood that it had the authority to sua sponte 

reduce his sentence under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, and he 

urges us to vacate the district court’s order and remand for further 

proceedings. We need not address this contention because we do not review 

arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See United States 

v. Ramirez, 557 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-30694 Document: 00515995802 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/26/2021