Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Timothy MCNEIL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-22
Citations: 78 F. App'x 406
Docket Number: No. 03-20435
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Timothy MCNEIL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 406–406

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Timothy MCNEIL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-20435.
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 22, 2003.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Jeffery Aan Babcock, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gerald Timothy McNeil, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Gerald Timothy McNeil ("McNeil"), federal prisoner # 70984-079, appeals the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to modify his sentence. McNeil was convicted of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine base and aiding and abetting possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base. McNeil argues that the district court erroneously increased his base offense level for possession of a firearm, and he contends that he was entitled to a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
A district court may reduce a term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 when it is based upon a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by an amendment to the Guidelines, if the reduction is consistent with the policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir.1997). Reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is discretionary, and this court reviews a district court's refusal to lower a defendant's sentence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir.1994).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McNeil's motion because his arguments are outside the scope of a 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582; United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 217-18 (5th Cir.1996).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.