IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH 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 commit money laundering and

conspiring to possess with intent to distribute fifty or more grams of cocaine base

and five or more kilograms of cocaine.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 16, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-31098 Document: 00511959350 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2012
No. 11-31098

The district court determined that Odom was not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2)

reduction in his sentence because Amendment 706 did not have the effect of

lowering his guidelines range of imprisonment. Odom acknowledges that fact

but argues that the district court should have granted his § 3582(c)(2) motion

based on consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Citing the “unique

circumstances of [his] case,” 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 equal 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 have the effect of lowering Odom’s

applicable guidelines range, Odom was ineligible for a sentence reduction under

§ 3582(c)(2) as 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, 2691-92 (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. See United States v.

Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 711-12 (5th Cir. 2011).

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 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

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