Case: 08-11190 Document: 00511293188 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/15/2010




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                 FILED
                                                                         November 15, 2010
                                     No. 08-11190
                                   Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL LAWRENCE WILLIAMS,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 5:06-CR-30-ALL


Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       Michael Lawrence Williams, federal prisoner # 34595-177, pleaded guilty
in 2006 to distribution and possession with the intent to distribute more than 50
grams of a mixture containing cocaine base (“crack”), and he was sentenced to
235 months of imprisonment.              Williams filed a motion under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) seeking a reduction in his sentence based on a retroactive
amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that applied to crack offenses. He now
appeals the district court’s denial of that motion.

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
    Case: 08-11190 Document: 00511293188 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2010

                                 No. 08-11190

      Williams argues that the district court erred by failing to appoint counsel
to represent him during his § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. Williams did not request
counsel or object regarding appointment of counsel in the district court.
Therefore, his argument is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Whitfield,

, 347 n.15 (5th Cir. 2009) (“[G]enerally speaking, the plain error
rule is invoked when an appellant raises an issue on appeal that he failed to
preserve in the court below.”), cert. denied, 

(2010) (No. 09-
11067).
      The district court did not plainly err by not sua sponte appointing counsel
for Williams. See United States v. Whitebird, 

, 1010-11 (5th Cir.
1995).
      AFFIRMED.




                                       2