United States v. Alfred Brooks

638 F. App'x 421

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Alfred Brooks, federal prisoner # 30337-077, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, maintaining a place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using a controlled substance and aiding and abetting, and using and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense and aiding and abetting. He appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the district court abused its discretion in finding he was ineligible for a sentence reduction because the calculation of his advisory guidelines range did not involve a drug quantity. He contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction because his conviction for maintaining a place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using a controlled substance involved drugs. He further asserts that the district court based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence and did not consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

The district court correctly determined that Brooks was not eligible for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 because his sentence was not based on U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c). Because Brooks’s sentence was not based on a guidelines range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission, he was ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on Amendment 782. See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 790-91 (5th Cir.2009) (per curiam). Therefore, Brooks has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir.2011) (per curiam).

In addition, Brooks challenges the drug quantity alleged in the indictment and Pre-sentence Report and argues that the Government breached his plea agreement by using protected information to increase his sentence. However, § 3582(c)(2) is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge purported errors in the original criminal proceeding and sentencing. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir.2009).

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* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under-the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.