Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Henry Sebastion ROHDEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-11
Citations: 489 F. App'x 761
Docket Number: No. 12-10043
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Henry Sebastion ROHDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 489
Pages: 761–762

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Henry Sebastion ROHDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10043
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 11, 2012.
Henry Sebastion Rohden, FCI Texar-kana, Texarkana, TX, pro se.
Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Henry Sebastion Rohden, federal prisoner # 30522-177, appeals the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). On appeal, Rohden argues that the district court failed to consider evidence showing that the PSR mischarae-terized his prior state convictions as crimes of violence and mistakenly applied the career offender enhancement. We review the district court's decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.2009).
Because Rohden's sentence was based on the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, any offense level reductions resulting from the recent amendments to § 2D1.1 would have no impact on his total offense level or the applicable guidelines range. Therefore, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in Rohden's sentence. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B); United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 790-91 & n. 9 (5th Cir.2009). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. Rohden's argument that he has evidence showing that he should not have been deemed a career offender fails, as a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding may not be used to challenge the calculation of the original sentence. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 674.
Rohden has filed at least two other unsuccessful motions to reduce his sentence that purported to be based on amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. Although the instant motion cites a different amendment, he again raises challenges to his original sentencing proceeding that are not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Given Rohden's repeated efforts to raise the same challenge to his sentence, he is warned that frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court's jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED; 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.