P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40835 Su m m ar y Cal 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 A N N I E I N G R A M 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 or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas N o. 6: 01- C R

- 31- 4
B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * D an n i e I n gr a m p lea ded gu i l t y i n 200 1 pu rsuan tt o a w ri t t en pl ea agreem en tt o one coun tof possessi on w i t h i n t en tt o di st ribu t e an d d i st ribu t i on of coc ai ne base ( c r ac k c oc ai ne) i n vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. § 841( a) ( 1) , an d he w as s e n t e n c e dto a 1 9 8 -m o n t h t e r m o f i m p r is o n m e n t . H e a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 15, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40835

U
. S
. v. B oe , 1 1 7 F .3d 8 3 0 , 8 3 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). 1 U
. S. v . G o nz ale z - Bal de r as , 1 0 5 F .3 d9 8 1 , 9 8 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (e m p h a s is 2 a d d e d ). S ee U
. S. v . Bur ns , 5 2 6 F .3 d8 5 2 , 8 6 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ).

3 S ee§ 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ). 4 d e n ia l o f h is 1 8 U .S .C
. § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) m o tio n fo rare d u c tio n o f s e n te n c e . W e r e vi e w t he de ni alo f

a§ 3 58 2 m o t i o n f

o ra bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n. 1 Ingram ’ s argum en tt h at t h e di st ri ctcourtshou l d beabl et oe xe r c i se B ooker d is c r e tio n to re s e n te n c e h im r e s ts o n th e fa ls e p r e m is e th a t § 3 5 8 2 a p p lie s to h is si t u ati on at al l
. “ S ect i on 358 2( c) ( 2) perm i t s a di st ri ct court t o reduce a ter m of i m p r i s o n m e n twh e n i ti s b a s e dupo n a s e n ten cingra nge th a t h a s s u b se q u en tly be e n lo w e r e d by an am e ndm e ntt o t heG ui del i n es , if s u c h are d u c tio n is c o n s is te n t w ith th e p o lic ys ta te m e n ts is s u e db yth e S e n te n c in gC o m m is s io n .” 2 T h i s stat u t e cl earl y i s i n ap pl i cabl e to Ing ram , w h ose s en t en ci n g ran ge h as not sub sequ en t l y been l ow ered by G u i del i n es am en dm en t . A m en dm en t 706 reduced t h e base of

fen se l evel s s etf

ort h i n U
. S
. S
. G
. § 2D 1. 1(c) app l i cabl e t o m ostcr ack c o c a in e o ffe n s e s . B u t a r e d u c tio n in In g r a m ’ s b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l u n d e r § 2 D 1 .1 3 pur s uant t o Am e ndm e nt 70 6 w o ul d no t af fe c t hi s gui de l i ne s r ang e b e c aus e t he ran ge w a s ca l cul ated un der § 4B 1. 1, t h e careerof f en der gu i del i n e. B ecau se I ngr a m ’ s g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e wa s n o t d e r iv e d f r o m t h e q u a n t i t y o f c r a c k c o c ai ne i nvolved i n t he o f

fens e, he w as nots ent enc ed base d on a se nt enc i ng r ange t hat w as s ubs e que nt l y l o w e r e d b y t he Se nt e nc i ng Com m i s s i o n. 4 T h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n otabu se i t s di scr et i on i n den yi n g Ingram ’ s m ot i on fo rar e d u c t io n o f s e n t e n c e . I t s ju d g m e n tis A F F I R M E D , t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’s m ot i on f

or s u m m ary af

f i rm an ce i s G R A N T E D , an d the G overnm en t ’ s m ot i on f or a n ex ten sion of ti m e is D E N IE D as m oo t.