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 UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60552 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. TI M OTH Y LI DD ELL , 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 fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U S D C N o . 3 :96 -C R -1 0 7 -1 B ef ore JO L LY , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * T im o th yL id d e ll, fe d e r a l p r is o n e r#0 4 3 8 5 -0 4 3 , a p p e a ls th e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n fo rare d u c tio n o f h is s e n te n c e u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ). L id d e ll pl e ad e d g ui l t y i n 199 7 t o pos s e s s i o n w i t h i nt e ntt o di s t r ibut e c o c ai ne b as e . The di st r i c tc our ts ent enc ed hi m t o at er m of 135 m ont hs of i m pri so nm ent . I n 2008, L i dd el lm ovedf

or a r edu ct i on i n hi s s en t en ce based on t h e U n i t ed S t ates S en t en cin gC om m i ssi on ’ s am en dm en t s t o t h e base of fen se l evel s f

or c rack c o c a in e . S ee U . S. S. G . S u p p . t o App’ x C, am end. 706, am end. 711 . T h e di st ri ct United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 22, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-60552 Document: 00511057647 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 08- 60552

2 c o ur tde t e r m i ne d thatLi dde l l ’ s a m e nde d g ui de l i ne s r ang e o f i m pr i s o nm e nt w ou l d be 120 - 135 m on t h s, b ased on the am en ded g u i del i n es an d t h e st atutor y m i n i m u m te rm fo r hi s of fen se of convi ct i on . A f

t er c on si deri n g t h e gu i del i n es a m e n d m e n t s , 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 2 , a n dt h e s e n t e n c i n gfa c t o r s o u t l i n e di n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (a ), th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e c lin e dto re d u c e L id d e ll’ s s e n te n c e b a s e do n h is crim i n a lh i storyan dh i s p ost-con victi on con d u ct. T h e d i stri ct cou rt no tedtha t, w h i l e i n carcer ated, L i dd el l “h adbeen sancti on ed on f ive separate oc casi on s f or f i ght i ng w i t h ot he ri nm at e s , onc e fo rfail i ng t o ob e y an o r de r , a nd o nc e f o rfail i ng t o s t andc o unt . ” Li dde l lt i m e l y ap pe al e d. T h e G o v e r n m e n t h a s m o v e dto d is m is s L id d e ll’ s a p p e a l, a r g u in gth a t itis ba r r e d b y t he appe alw aive rco nt ai ne d i n L i dde l l ’ s w r i t t e n pl e a ag r e e m e nt . The provi si on st ates t h at Li dd el l“w aives t h e ri gh tt o app ealt h e sentence i m posed i n t h i s c a s e o n a ny g r o u n d , i n c l u d i n ga n ya p p e a lr i g h tc o n fe r r e db y1 8 U. S . C. § 3 7 4 2 , an d w aives t h e ri gh tt o contes tt h e sentence i n an y post- convic t i on proceedi n g . . . . ” W e h ave h el d “ t h at a m ot i on fora sentence m odi f i cat i on un der 18 U . S. C . § 3582(c ) ( 2) i s notpr operl y c ons i der ed an ‘ appeal ’or‘ c oll at er al pro c ee di ng’ und er t he t er m s of a gener al w aiver of appeal. . . , and, c ons equent l y, ap pel l ate r evi ew of

t h e den i alof

a § 3582 (c) ( 2) m ot i on i s no t barred by su ch w a ive rs. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cooley , 5 9 0 F .3 d2 9 3 , 2 9 7 (5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). L id d e ll ’s a p p ea l , th ere fore, i s n ot ba rred bythe w a ive r an dthe G ov ern m en t’ s m oti on to d is m is s th e a p p e a l is D E N IE D . The di s t r i c t c o ur t pr o pe r l y c o ns i de r e d t he 18 U . S. C. § 3 55 3( a) fac t o r s a nd a c te dw ith in its d is c r e tio n inco n s id e r in gL id d e l l ’s p o s t-c o n v ic tio n co n d u c t in d e c lin in gto re d u c e h is s e n te n c e . S eeUn itedS ta tes v . S m ith , —F . 3 d—, 2 0 1 0 WL 3 6 6 7 4 5 , * 1 (5t h C ir. F e b . 3 , 2 0 1 0 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . Evan s , 587 F. 3d 667, 672- 73 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), pe t i t i o n f o rc e r t . f

i le d (U . S . Jan . 28, 201 0) ( N o. 09-8939 ). A ccord i n gly, w e A F F IR M the j u d gm en t of the distri ct cou rt. Case: 08-60552 Document: 00511057647 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2010