Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brandon SMITH, also known as Taburk, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-28
Citations: 479 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 12-30162
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brandon SMITH, also known as Taburk, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 652–652

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brandon SMITH, also known as Taburk, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-30162
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 28, 2012.
Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carol Loupe Michel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tony Gordon Sanders, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roma Ajubita Kent, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Virginia Laugh-lin Schlueter, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Smith, federal prisoner # 27265-034, appeals the denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Smith argues that the denial of the motion has resulted in an above-guidelines sentence, even though he was initially sentenced within the Sentencing Guidelines. We review the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.2009).
In this case, the district court determined that Smith was eligible for a reduction in sentence based on Amendment 750 of the Sentencing Guidelines; however, the court concluded that a reduction was not appropriate due to Smith's misconduct while incarcerated. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. —, —, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). The district court properly considered Smith's post-sentencing conduct in determining whether to grant relief under § 3582(c)(2). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment, (n. 1(B)(iii)); United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933, 936 (5th Cir.2011). Moreover, the court had no obligation to grant such relief. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 673-74.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.