Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Swany D. DAVENPORT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-02
Citations: 400 F. App'x 885
Docket Number: No. 09-10171
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Swany D. DAVENPORT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 885–885

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Swany D. DAVENPORT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10171
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 2, 2010.
Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Swany D. Davenport, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Swany D. Davenport seeks appointment of counsel to appeal the district court's order granting him a sentencing reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines covering crack cocaine offenses. Davenport's sentence was reduced from 360 months to 292 months, and the district court opined that it would have considered a greater reduction if it was so authorized.
Davenport contends that the holding of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), applies to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings and that the district court erred when it determined that it was constrained in the amount of a reduction it could award. Davenport's argument has been rejected and is foreclosed. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 236-39 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009). Because Davenport's appeal "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact," the appeal is frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967)). Davenport has already received the greatest sentence reduction the district court could have granted him. Accordingly the motion for appointment of counsel is denied and the appeal is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.