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- 30977 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. A N T H O N YW J E T E R , a ls o k n o w n a s B u g , 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 W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 5: 01- C R

- 50070- 5
B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * A n th on y W
. J eter w a s con victed of on e cou n t of con sp i ra cy to p oss ess w i th i n t e n tt o d i s t r ib u t e 5 0 0 o rmo r e g r a ms o f p o w d e rc o c a i n e a n df iv e o rmo r e g r a ms o f c r a c kco c a i n e , a n dth e d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e dh im to s e rv e 1 3 2 m o n th s in pri so n and a f

ive- yearte r m of

supervi se d rel eas e. Thi s se nt enc e w as l ow ert han th e g u id e li n e s r a n g e o f 18 8 -2 3 5 m o n th s in p riso n a n dw a s th e re su lt of a U .S .S .G . § 5 K 1 .1 m o tio n file db yth e G o v e r n m e n t. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 17, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-30977 Document: 00511053959 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2010N o. 08- 30977

2 W e a r e no w pr es ent ed w i t h Jet er ’ s appealf r om the di st r i c tc our t ’ s deni al o f hi s 1 8 U
. S. C. § 3 58 2(c ) ( 2) m o t i o n f o rar e duc t i o n o f

s e nt e nc e b as e d o n t he
r e t r o ac t ive a m e ndm e nt s t o U
. S. S. G
. § 2 D 1. 1, t he Se nt en ci ng G ui de l i ne pertai n i n g t o cr ack cocai n e of fen ses. Adi st ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof a redu ct i on u n d e r§ 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) is re v ie w e dfo ra n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio 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 ). J e te ra r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e dits d is c r e tio n b yd e n y in gh is requ estf

or a r edu ct i on i n sentence c o m pa r able t o t h e reducti on he receivedw h en h e w as ori gi n al l y sentenced. Th i s argu m en tlacks m eri tb ecau se a di st ri ctcourt has the di sc r et i on t o g r anta c om par abl e r educ t i on i n sent enc e s uch as t hat req u ested b y J eter, b u t “i t is n ot c om p ell ed to d o so . ” S ee Un i t ed Stat es v. Cooley , 5 9 0 F .3 d2 9 3 , 2 9 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). N e xt , J e t e rc o nt e n ds t h at the di s t r i c tc o ur ts ho ul d ha ve a ppli e d t he pr i nc i pl e s e nunc i at e d i n Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 543 U
. S
. 220 ( 200 5) , w h en c o n s id e r in gh is m o tio n . T h is a r g u m e n t h a s p r e v io u s l yb e e n reje c te db yth is
cou rt, w h i ch h a s h eld th a t B ooker and t he r eas onabl enes s st andard thats pri ngs f r o m B ookerd o n o t a p p lyto p r o c e e d in g s u n d e r§ 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ). Evan s , 587 F. 3d at 6 7 1 -7 2 ; Un itedS ta tes v. D o u b lin , 5 7 2 F .3 d2 3 5 , 2 3 8 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 130 S . C t. 5 1 7 (2 0 0 9 ). Fi nall y, J e t e rave r s t hatt he di s t r i c tco ur tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i o n b y fail i ng t o m ak e specif

i c f i n di n gs i n conn ect i on w i t h i t s d en i alof h i s m ot i on . “ [A] court i s notr equi r ed t o s t at e f i ndi ngs of

fac t s and c onc l usi ons of l aw w hen denyi ng a § 3 5 8 2 (c) (2) m oti on . ” Evans , 5 87 F. 3da t6 74 (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd ci t ati on om i t t ed). Th e r e co rd i n t h e i n st an tcase show s t h at th e di st ri ctcourt ga ve duec o ns i de r at i o n t o t he m o t i o n a s a w h ol e a nd i m pl i c i t l y c o ns i de r e d t he § 355 3( a) fact ors. C on sequ en t l y, n o abu se of di scr et i on ari ses f rom i t s c h oi ce not to g iv e s p e c ific re a s o n s in s u p p o r t o f th e m o t i o n . S ee Cooley , 590 F. 3d at298; Evans , 587 F. 3d at672- 73. T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is A F F IR M E D
. Case: 08-30977 Document: 00511053959 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2010