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 shedan 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 UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50700 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. K EV I N J ER O M E M ED LO CK , a l s o kno w n a s K e vi n M e dl o c k 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 th e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 04- C R
- 17- 2 B ef ore JO L LY , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * K e v in J e r o m e M e d lo c k , fe d e r a l p r i s o n e r#3 5 9 8 7 -1 8 0 , p le a d e dg u iltyin 20 04 t o po s s e s s i o n wi t h t he i nt e ntt o di s t r ibut e f iveg r am s o rm o r e o f “ c r ac k” coca i n e in v i olati on of 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)( 1 ), (b )( 1 )( B )(i i i), an dw a s sen ten cedto a1 3 0 -m o n th te r m o f im p r is o n m e n t. H e a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is 18 U . S. C . § 3582(c ) ( 2) m ot i on f ora r educ t i on of se nt enc e. W e r evi ew t he deni al United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D June 24, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50700

2 o f a§ 3 5 8 2 m o tio n fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Un i t ed S t ate s v. B oe , 117 F. 3d 830, 8 3 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). M edl ock’ s argum en tt h at th e di st ri ctcourtshou l d be ab l e t o exerci se di scr et i on un der Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), to re s e n te n c e h im reli es on t h e fal se prem i se t h at § 358 2 ap pl i es t o h i s sit u ati o n . “ S ect i on 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) p e r m its a d is tr ic t co u r t to r e d u c e a te r m o f im p r is o n m e n t w h e n it is ba s e d up o n a s e n t enci ng r anget hathass ubs e que nt l yb e e n lo w e r e d byan am e ndm e ntt o t heG ui de l i n es , if su ch a redu ct i on i s c on si st en tw i t h t h e pol i cy statem en ts i ssu edbythe S en ten ci n g C om m i ssion . ” Uni t e d S t at e sv. G o nzalez - Bal de r as , 105 F . 3d981 , 982 ( 5th C i r. 199 7) ( em ph asi s add ed). Sect i on 358 2(c) ( 2) does not app l y t o M edl ock be ca u se hi s s en t en ci n g ran ge h as not s ubs e que nt l y be e n l o w e r e d b y an am en dm e ntt o t he G ui de l i ne s . Am e ndm e nt 7 0 6 red u cedthe ba se o ff en se leve l s set forth inU . S . S . G . § 2D 1 . 1 (c) ap p l i ca b l e to m o s t c r a c kc o c a in e o ffe n s e s . S ee Uni t e d St at e sv . Bur ns , 52 6 F . 3 d85 2 , 86 1 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 00 8) . A r e duc t i o n i n M e dl o c k’ s b as e o f fe ns e l e ve lund e r§ 2 D 1. 1 pur s uant t o A m en dm en t706 w ou l d n otaf fecthi s gui del i ne s r ang e becau se hi s base of fen se l evela n d concom i t an tran ge w as calc u l ated u n der § 4 B 1. 1, the career of fen der gui de l i ne . Bec aus e M e dl o c k’ s g ui de l i ne s r ang e w as no tde r i ved fr o m t he qu an t i t y of

crack cocai n e involvedin the of fen se, h e w as n otsen t en ced basedon a s e nt e nc i ng r ang e t hatw as s u bsequ e nt l y l o w e r e d b y t he Se nt e nc i ng C o m m is s io n . S ee§ 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ). T h e di st ri ctcourtd i d n ota bu se i t s d i scr et i on in d en yi n g M edl ock’ s m ot i on f o rar e duc t i o n o f

s e nt e nc e . The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s j udg m e nti s AFF I RM ED , t he G o ve r nm e nt ’ s m o t i o n f o rs um m ary af

f i r m anc e is G RA N TE D , a nd the G o v e r n m e n t ’s m o t io n fo ra n e x t e n s io n o f t im e i s D E N I E D a s m o o t . M e d lo c k ’s mo t i o n t o p r o c e e di n f o r ma p a u p e r i s i s DE NI ED .