United States v. Danelle Hall

425 F. App'x 388

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 17, 2011
• Docket: 10-30899
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

In 2007, Danelle Hall, federal prisoner # 35171-177, pleaded guilty to distribution of five or more grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Based on an enhancement pursuant to his previous guilty plea to possession of cocaine, Hall was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), 851.

Proceeding pro se, Hall appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. He relies on: the retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines for crack-cocaine offenses; United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and its progeny; and the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) (reduced disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses), which, he contends, should apply retroactively.

Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s sentence in certain cases in which the sentencing range has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009). The district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion; its interpretation of the Guidelines, de novo. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 3462, 177 L.Ed.2d 1064 (2010).

Because Hall received the mandatory minimum sentence, he was not eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief under the recent crack-cocaine Guideline amendments. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 851; United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 430-31 (5th Cir.1994). Hall’s assertion that he is entitled to re-sentencing under the FSA is without merit: the FSA does not apply retroactively. United States v. Doggins, 633 F.3d 379, 384 (5th Cir.2011). To the extent Hall urges our court to consider the effect of Booker and its progeny, his contention is unavailing. The principles of Booker and its progeny do not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, and a sentencing court lacks discretion to reduce the sentence any further than the reduction allowed under Guideline § 1B1.10 (limits circumstances ■under which defendant is entitled to § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on retroactive Guideline amendments). Doublin, 572 F.3d at 238.

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.