United States v. David Seigler

498 F. App'x 671

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Texas inmate David Seigler appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on U.S.S.G. Amendment 742 (deleting “recency” criminal history points). We agree with the district court that section 3582(c)(2) does not permit a sentencing reduction under Amendment 742, because the amendment is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) among those Guidelines amendments that may be applied retroactively. Thus, even if Amendment 742 were a clarifying rather than substantive amendment, as Seigler argues, he is not entitled to a reduction under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. McHan, 386 F.3d 620, 622 (4th Cir.2004).

We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1 . The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.