Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30854 Su m m ar yC al 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. S T E R L I N G L E WI S , a l s o k n o w n a s B a m B a m, a l s o k n o w n a s B 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 ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 02- C R

- 302- 5

B ef ore G A R W O O D , D E N N IS an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * S t e r li n gL e w is , fe d e r a l p r is o n e r#2 8 1 2 9 -0 3 4 , a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s J u ly2 3 ( a n d2 9 ), 2 0 0 8 d e n ia l o f h is 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) m o tio n t o r e d u c e h is sentence f

or c on spi racy t o possess w i t h i n t en tt o d i st ribu t e 5 0 gram s orm ore of
c o c ai ne ba s e , at l e as t 50 0 gr am s but l e s s t han 5 ki l o gr am s of coc ai ne h yd rochl ori de, an d at l east 5 0 k i l ogram s but l ess t h an 100 ki l ogram s of
m ar ij uana . Le w i s ’ s § 3 58 2(c ) ( 2) m o t i o n was b as e d o n Am e ndm e nt7 06 o f t he Sent enc i ng G ui del i nes . I n denyi ng t he m ot i on, t he di st r i c t c our t r eas oned that United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 7, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 08-30854 Document: 00511104544 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2010N o. 08- 30854

2 L ew i s h a drece ive dtw o p ri or su b stan ti a lsen ten ce re d u cti on s, pu rs u a n t t o m o t i o ns und e rU
. S. S. G

. § 5 K 1. 1 andF ED . R. C RIM . P. 35; hi s s ent enc e w as al r e ad y 57 m o nt hs l e s s t han t he b o t t o m o f hi s re c al c ul at e d gui de l i ne s ra nge ; a nd
no f ur t he rr e duc t i o n i n hi s s e nt e nc e w as w arrant e d. Le w i s a r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de ni alo f hi s m o t i o n c o ns t i t ut e d a n a bus e o f di s c r e t i o n. L e w is ’ s a p p e a l is n o t b a r r e db yt h e w a iv e rin h is p le aa g r e e m e n t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cooley , 590 F. 3d 293, 296- 97 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) (h ol di ng t hatan i d en ti ca lw a ive r d i dn ot ba r an ap p ea l). Ad i stri ct cou rt’ s d ecisi on w h eth er to
r e duc e as e nt e nc e pur s uantto § 3 58 2(c ) ( 2) i s r e vi e w e d f o ra bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n. Uni t e d St at e s v . Evan s , 5 8 7 F .3 d6 6 7 , 6 7 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), pet i t i on f or c ert
. f

i led , (Jan
. 28, 201 0) ( N o. 09-8939). T h e di st ri ctcourtw as perm i t t ed bu tnot r equ i red to g r a n t ar e d u c tio n in L e w is ’ s s e n te n c e . S ee § 1 B 1 .1 0 (b )(2 )(B ); Cooley , 590 F. 3d
a t 29 7
. T h e rec ord refl ects th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt w a s a w a re of i ts a u th ority to g r a n t a r e d u c tio n t o L e w is ’ s s e n te n c e , w a s p r e s e n te dw ith L e w is ’ s a r g u m e n ts in favor of a redu ct i on , an d h adbef ore itdocum en t s al l ow i n g f or consi derati on of t he fac t o r s r e l e va ntt o t he de c i s i o n whet he rt o g r ant a r e duc t i o n. W e di s c e r n no a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee Cooley , 5 9 0 F .3 da t 2 9 7 -9 8 ; Evans , 5 8 7 F .3 da t 6 7 2 -7 3 ; Un i t ed S t ate s v. W h i t ebi rd , 55 F .3d 1 0 0 7 , 101 0 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ).AF F I RMED. Case: 08-30854 Document: 00511104544 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2010