IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30999

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DANNY RAY LYNCH,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:07-CR-50075-2

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Danny Ray Lynch, federal prisoner # 13758-035, appeals the district

court’s grant of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on

the amendments to the crack cocaine Guideline. Lynch argues that the district

1

court failed to state that it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 20, 2010

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.

Lynch received a substantial assistance reduction upon motion of the Government. 1

Therefore, Lynch was ineligible for Section 3582 relief under the law of this Circuit. See

United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). The Government does not

appeal the grant of the Section 3582 motion, however, so we address only Lynch's appeal.

Case: 08-30999 Document: 00511085929 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
No. 08-30999

state the reasons for the sentence. He further contends that he was entitled to

a greater reduction in his sentence of imprisonment.

We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under

§ 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion, and its interpretation of the Sentencing

Guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009). “[T]here are clear and significant

differences between original sentencing proceedings and sentence modification

proceedings.” United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting

Doublin, 572 F.3d at 238), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 28, 2010) (No. 09-8939).

Whereas original sentencing proceedings are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3553,

sentencing modification proceedings are governed by § 3582(c)(2), which requires

only that the district court consider the § 3553(a) factors. Id. at 673. Lynch

submitted a sentencing brief in which he “described in detail why the § 3553(a)

factors weighed in favor of a sentence at the bottom of, or below, the sentencing

range.” See id. at 673. This court “can assume that [the district court]

considered” Lynch’s arguments regarding the § 3553(a) factors and “that it

concluded that the § 3553(a) factors weigh in [the defendant’s] favor.” Evans,

587 F.3d at 673 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The district court

is “not required to state findings of facts and conclusions of law” when granting

or denying a motion under § 3582(c)(2). Id. at 674 (internal quotations and

citation omitted). Moreover, a defendant cannot successfully challenge a district

court’s failure to provide reasons “for granting his [§ 3582(c)(2)] motion but not

providing a satisfactorily low enough sentence within the recalculated range.”

Id.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 08-30999 Document: 00511085929 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2010