Case: 08-10378 Document: 00511315020 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2010




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

                                                 FILED
                                                                          December 8, 2010
                                     No. 08-10378
                                  Conference Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDWARD WILLIAMS, also known as E-Mac,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:92-CR-10-7


Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       Edward Williams, federal prisoner # 05418-031, was convicted of
distribution of cocaine base. After the Sentencing Commission reduced the
guidelines ranges applicable to cocaine base offenses, Williams filed a motion
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a reduction of his sentence. The district
court determined that Williams was not eligible for a reduction of his sentence
because of the quantity of cocaine base involved in the offense. Williams gave
timely notice of his appeal and has requested appointment of counsel.

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 08-10378 Document: 00511315020 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2010

                                   No. 08-10378

      Williams contends that the district court erred in failing to reexamine its
“previous mandatory guidelines sentencing calculation” and relevant conduct
determination. Williams invokes United States v. Booker, 

(2005).
“A § 3582(c)(2) motion is not a second opportunity to present mitigating factors
to the judge, nor is it a challenge to the appropriateness of the original sentence.”
United States v. Whitebird, 

, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995). Booker does not
apply in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. Dillon v. United States, 

, 2691-
94 (2010).
      Because Williams’s offense involved more than 4.5 kilograms of cocaine
base, he was ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G., Supp. to App.
C, Amend. 706; U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.10(D)(ii)(I)). Thus, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See United States v.
Evans, 

, 672 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 

(2010).
The district court’s order is AFFIRMED. Williams’s request for appointment of
counsel is DENIED.




                                          2