Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Jay HAWLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-21
Citations: 691 F. App'x 173
Docket Number: No. 16-41038 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Jay HAWLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 173–173

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Jay HAWLEY, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-41038 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed June 21, 2017
Alan Reeve Jackson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mary Ann Cozby, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas., Tyler, TX, Plaintiff-Appellee
Michael Jay Hawley, Pro Se
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Jay Hawley, federal prisoner # 15687-078, was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during and in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence. Hawley argues that he is entitled to a reduction under Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782 and contends that the district court should have applied the offense level agreed upon in the plea agreement. He also asserts that the district court offered insufficient reasons for denying the motion.
Hawley is ineligible for a sentence reduction because he was sentenced below the amended guidelines range of imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), p.s.; United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court was not required to provide reasons for its denial of the § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 2009).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.