Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Terrence MILLSAPS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-22
Citations: 235 F. App'x 990
Docket Number: No. 06-30707
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Terrence MILLSAPS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 990–991

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Terrence MILLSAPS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30707
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 22, 2007.
M. Irene Gonzalez, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Terrence Millsaps, Coleman, FL, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Terrence Millsaps, federal prisoner # 83445-012, appeals from the district court's denial of his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We review the district court's denial for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Boe, 117 F.3d 830, 831 (5th Cir.1997); United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 28-29 (5th Cir.1994).
Millsaps's motion relies upon a sentencing guideline amendment that was enacted more than two years before his sentence was imposed. Millsaps's contention that he did not receive notice of his sentencing enhancement pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851 is not cognizable under § 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Millsaps's motion. See Shaw, 30 F.3d at 28.
Millsaps's appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). We caution Millsaps that further frivolous filings may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary penalties, and restrictions on his ability to file appeals in this court and actions in any court subject to this court's jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.