Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30686 Su m m ar yC al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. D AN A H I CK S , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 94- C R
- 97- 3
B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * D an a H i cks, federalpri soner # 240 60-034, a pp eal s the den i alof h i s m ot i on for a sen ten ce re d u cti on pu rsu a n t t o 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 8 2 (c) (2). H i ck s p l ea d edgu i l ty t o po ss es si on w i t h i nt en t t o di st r ibut e c r ac k c oc ai ne and w as s ent enc ed t o 2 36 m on th s’i m p ri son m en t. H e a rg u es th a t h e i s en titl edto a red u cti on pu rsu a n t t o A m en dm en t706 , w h i ch m odi f ied th e gu i del i n es r an ges app l i cabl e t o cr ack cocai n e of

fen ses t o redu ce t h e di spari t y betw een crack cocai n e a n d p o w der United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 19, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-30686 Document: 00511031237 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 08- 30686

2 coca i n e sen ten ces. U
. S
. S
. G
. S u p p . to A p p ’ x C , A m en d . 7 0 6 ; se e also Un i t ed St at e sv . Bur ns , 5 2 6 F .3d8 5 2 , 8 6 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ).

“ S ect i on 358 2(c)(2 ) p e rm i t s a di st ri ctcourtt o reduce a ter m of i m p ri s o n m e n t . . . if su ch a re d u cti on i s con sist en t w i ththe po l i cystatem en ts i ssu ed b y t h e S en ten ci n g C om m i ssion
. ” Uni t e d S t at e sv. G o nzalez - Bal de r as , 105 F .3d9 8 1 , 9 8 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). “[A] re d u ce dter m of im p riso n m e n t [i s n o t] a m a tt e ro f r ig h t,” h o w e v e r . U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 , co m m e n t (b a c k g ’ d .); se e D o u b lin , 572 F. 3d at238 (“ [R ] educ t i ons under 18 U
. S. C
. § 3582(c ) ( 2) ar e no tm andat or y; t h i s s ect i on m erely gives t h e di st ri ct court di scr et i on t o reduce a sentence u n der li m itedcirc u m sta n ce s.”). H i c ks a c kno w l e dg e s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tm ayc o ns i de rpo s t
- s e nt e nc i ng beh aviorw h en deci di n g a § 358 2(c) ( 2) m o ti on . H e argu es th at i n hi s c ase, h o w e v e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t fo c u s e do n lyo n h is n e g a tiv e b e h a v io ra n dig n o r e dh is e d u c a t io n a l a n d v o c a t io n a l a c c o m p li s h m e n t s . H e s t a t e s th a tth e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s t r e at m e nto f

hi s pr i s o n r e c ord ess e nt i all y r e - puni s he s hi m a nd i gno r e s t he Se nt e n c i n gCo m m i s s i o n ’ s c o n c e r n t h a tt h e p r e v i o u s c r a c kc o c a i n e s e n t e n c i ng r e gi m e w as t o o hi gh. T h e a m e n d e d G u id e li n e s r e q u ir e d t h a t t h e d is t r ic t c o u r t c o n s id e rH ic k s ’s p o s t
- s e n te n c e co n d u c t. S ee§ 1 B 1 .1 0 , c o m m e n t(n .1 (B )) . G iv e n th a tH ic k s ’s d i sciplin a ryreco rdin clu d edin fra c tio n s fo rv io le n t b e h a v io r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e it s d is c r e tio n in d e c lin in gt o r e d u c e H ic k s ’ s s e n te n c e . S ee D o u b lin , 572 F. 3d at237. AF F I RMED. Case: 08-30686 Document: 00511031237 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2010