Filed: Oct. 14, 2020
Latest Update: Oct. 15, 2020
Summary: Case: 20-30091 Document: 00515602181 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 14, 2020 No. 20-30091 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Dontour D. Drakes, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:13-CR-90-2 Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:*
Summary: Case: 20-30091 Document: 00515602181 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 14, 2020 No. 20-30091 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Dontour D. Drakes, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:13-CR-90-2 Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* ..
More
Case: 20-30091 Document: 00515602181 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 14, 2020
No. 20-30091
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Dontour D. Drakes,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:13-CR-90-2
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Dontour D. Drakes, federal prisoner # 16320-035, appeals the denial
of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines and the First Step Act. We
review the district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30091 Document: 00515602181 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/14/2020
No. 20-30091
§ 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson,
636 F.3d
713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Jackson,
945 F.3d 315, 319
& n.2 (5th Cir. 2019) (First Step Act), cert. denied,
2020 WL 1906710 (U.S.
Apr. 20, 2020) (No. 19-8036).
With respect to the district court’s denial of Drakes’s motion for
sentence reduction under Amendment 782, this amendment altered the
Drug Quantity Table set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) by effectively lowering
most drug-related base offense levels by two levels. See U.S.S.G. App. C,
Supp. to Amend. 782. However, because Drakes’s offense level was
determined based on the career offender guideline, rather than based on the
quantity of drugs involved in the offense, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(c)(2),
Amendment 782 did not reduce his base offense level or his guidelines
sentencing range, see United States v. Quintanilla,
868 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir.
2017). Consequently, because Amendment 782 did “not have the effect of
lowering [Drakes’s] applicable guideline range,” Drakes was ineligible for a
reduction under § 3582(c)(2). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
As to the district court’s denial of Drakes’s motion for a sentence
reduction based on the First Step Act, “Section 404 of the First Step Act
concerns the application of [the] Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.” United States
v. Hegwood,
934 F.3d 414, 416 (5th Cir.) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted), cert. denied,
140 S. Ct. 285 (2019). A defendant is eligible
for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act if: (1) he committed a
“‘covered offense,’” which is defined as “a violation of a Federal criminal
statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified by section 2 or 3 of
the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 . . . that was committed before August 3,
2010;” and (2) his sentence was not previously imposed or reduced pursuant
to the Fair Sentencing Act and he did not previously file a motion under the
First Step Act which was denied on the merits. See Pub. L. No. 115-391,
§ 404(a), (c); 132 Stat. 5194, 5222;
Hegwood, 934 F.3d at 416-17. Because
2
Case: 20-30091 Document: 00515602181 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/14/2020
No. 20-30091
Drakes’s offense was not committed before August 3, 2010, the Fair
Sentencing Act already applied to him and the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying his motion for a sentence reduction. See Pub. L. No.
115-391, § 404(a).
AFFIRMED.
3