Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ernest ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-20
Citations: 373 F. App'x 523
Docket Number: No. 08-31193
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ernest ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 523–523

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ernest ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-31193
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 20, 2010.
Gaven Thomas Kammer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen Andrew Higginson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Ernest Allen, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ernest Allen, federal prisoner # 22651-034, appeals the district court's grant of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on the amendments to the crack cocaine Guideline. Allen argues that the district court's decision to reduce his sentence by only 12 months was an abuse of discretion.
Reductions under § 3582(c)(2) are not mandatory and are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237-38 (5th Cir.2009), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009). In Allen's case, the district court did not base its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. See id. at 237; see United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 486-87 (5th Cir.2005); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.l(B)(i)-(iii)). Also, the district court's failure to provide case-specific reasons for its decision does not constitute reversible error. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672-74 (5th Cir.2009), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 28, 2010) (No. 09-8939).
The judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cut R. 47.5.4.