Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Casey Leon FORGE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-18
Citations: 401 F. App'x 984
Docket Number: No. 08-50268
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Casey Leon FORGE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 984–984

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Casey Leon FORGE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50268
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 18, 2010.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Casey Leon Forge, Forrest City, AR, pro se.
Before JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Casey Leon Forge, federal prisoner # 60972-080, pleaded guilty in 2002, pursuant to a written agreement, to possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to 160 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Forge appeals the denial of his pro se 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion in which he argued that his sentence should be reduced based on retroactive amendments to the Guidelines for crack cocaine.
Forge's argument that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it denied his § 3582(c)(2) motion without first appointing counsel because the right to counsel attached under the advisory sentencing scheme is unavailing. A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not a full resentencing. Dillon v. United States, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691-94, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir.2009). A motion for reduction of sentence is not an ancillary matter under the Criminal Justice Act, and Forge "has no constitutional right to appointed counsel for the purpose of bringing a § 3582(c)(2) motion." United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010-11 (5th Cir.1995).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.