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

No. 11-31098 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CALVIN ODOM, also known as Butch Wilson, also known as Calvin Odon, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:00-CR-50050

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Calvin Odom, federal prisoner # 16638-112, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction in sentence based on Amendment 706 to § 2D1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. He currently is serving a life sentence for conspiring to commi t money laundering and conspiring to possess with intent to distribute fifty or more grams of cocaine base and five or more kilograms of cocaine. 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 August 16, 20 12 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: 11-31098 Document: 00511959350 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2012No. 11-31098

The district court determined that Odom was not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction in his sente n c e b e c ause Amendment 706 did not have the effect of lowering his guidelines range of imprisonment. O d o m a c knowledges that fact but argues that the distri c t c o u rt should have granted his § 3582(c)(2) motion based on consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Citi ng the “unique circumstances of [his] c a s e , ” he contends that “failure to reduce his sentence resulted in the district court’s sanctioning of a draconian and discriminatory punishment [that violated his] rights to e qu a l protection and due process.” Odom asserts that his sentence was unduly harsh because it was calculated in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), based on an amount of crack cocaine that was neither alleged in the indictment nor established beyond

a reasonable doubt and because he was sentenced at a time when the Guidelines unjustly applied a 100:1 ratio in calculating sentences for defendants convicted of crimes involving crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine. Because Amendment 706 did not h av e the effect of lowering Odom’s applicable guidelines range, Odom was ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3 5 8 2 (c) ( 2 ) a s a matter of law. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Thus, the district court had no cause to determine whether a sentence reduction would be appropriate in light of the relevant § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States , 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2 6 9 1

- 92 (2010)

. Moreover, Odom’s arguments challenged aspects of his original sentence that were not affected by Amendment 706 and

were not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding

. Se e United States v. Hernandez , 645 F.3d 709, 711-12 (5th Cir. 2 011). Odom has not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue with respect to the district court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Odom’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-31098 Document: 00511959350 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2012