### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41121 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
RYAN POWERS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:13

- CR

- 95

- 12

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge : * Ryan Powers, federal prisoner # 21662

- 078 , is serving a 168

- month

sentence for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine

. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2) based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels in the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1( c)

. Citing Freeman v. United

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 21, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41121 Document: 00513767287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2016No. 15

- 41121

2 States , 564 U.S. 522, 530 (2011), Powers argues that the district court erred in finding him ineligible for a sentence reduction because h e was sentence d pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreem ent

. Section 3582(c)(2) grants a district court the discretion to modify a defendant’s sentence if he “has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). However, a defendant sentenced pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement may be eligible for a § 3582(c)(2)
reduction only if “the agreement itself employs the particular Guideline sentencing range applicable to the charged offenses in establishing the term of imprisonment.” Freeman , 564 U.S. at 5 40 (Sotomayor, J., concurring)

. Powers’s plea agreement does not call for him “t o be sentenced within a particular Guidelines sentencing range; ” nor provide s “ for a specific term of imprisonment

. . . but also make [s] clear that the basis for the specified term [wa] s a Guidelines sentencing range applicable to the offence to which [he ] pleaded guilty; ” n or “ explicitly employ s a particular Guidelines sentencing range to establish a term of imprisonment. ” See id. at 538

- 40

. Thus, Powers’s Rule 11(c)(1)( C ) sentence was not based on a sentencing range that was lowered by Amendment 782, a nd the district court had no authority to reduce
hi s sentence under § 3582(c)(2). See Freeman, 564 U.S. at 538

- 40; United States v. Benitez , 822 F.3d 807, 81 2 (5th Cir. 2016)

. Powers has not shown that the district court erred in denying his § 3582 (c)( 2) motion. 1 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Powers’s motions for discovery and the production of transcripts are DENIED.

1 As the district court did not err in determining that Powers is ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence was imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, we do not consider the parties’ arguments relating to the Government’s alternative assertion that Powers is ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on his status as a career offender. Case: 15-41121 Document: 00513767287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2016