United States v. Brian Terry

671 F. App'x 323
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 15, 2016
Docket15-11291 Summary Calendar
StatusUnpublished

This text of 671 F. App'x 323 (United States v. Brian Terry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Brian Terry, 671 F. App'x 323 (5th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Brian Terry, federal prisoner #42458-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C, § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels in the drug quantity table set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c). We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). “A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (quoting United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 486-87 (5th Cir. 2005)).

At his original sentencing, Terry’s' offense level was calculated based on the career-offender guideline in § 4B1.1 and not the drug amounts in § 2Dl.l(c). Accordingly, his sentence was not based on a guideline that has been amended, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that he is not eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Banks, 770 F.3d 346, 349 (5th Cir. 2014). He cannot use a § 3582(c)(2) motion to challenge the application of the career-offender guideline provision at his original sentencing based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). See United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011) (“A modification proceeding is not the forum for a collateral attack on a sentence long since imposed.... ”).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cíe, R, 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Smith
417 F.3d 483 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Henderson
636 F.3d 713 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Hernandez
645 F.3d 709 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Stephen Banks
770 F.3d 346 (Fifth Circuit, 2014)
Johnson v. United States
576 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
671 F. App'x 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-brian-terry-ca5-2016.