Case: 10-20230 Document: 00511315526 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. 10-20230
                                  Conference Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMES SANDLE,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:94-CR-282-3


Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       James Sandle, federal prisoner # 66616-079, appeals the district court’s
denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his sentence under
the recent crack cocaine guidelines amendments. He argues that the district
court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion; that the district
court should have reduced his sentence based on the recent crack cocaine
guidelines amendments; and that his statutory mandatory minimum sentence
was improperly based on his prior conviction for simple possession.

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-20230 Document: 00511315526 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2010

                                  No. 10-20230

      A district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion, and its interpretation of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo.
United States v. Evans, 

, 671-72 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.
Ct. 3462 (2010). Because Sandle was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum
sentence of 240 months of imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), the
district court lacked authority to impose a sentence below the statutory
minimum sentence. See United States v. Carter, 

, 577, 579-81 (5th
Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Robinson, 353 F. App’x 941, 942 (5th Cir.
2009). Sandle’s reliance on Spears v. United States, 

(2009), is
misplaced as Spears did not involve a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See 

.
      Sandle’s argument challenging his original sentencing may not be raised
in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. A § 3582(c)(2) motion “is not a second opportunity to
present mitigating factors to the sentencing judge, nor is it a challenge to the
appropriateness of the original sentence.” United States v. Whitebird, 

, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, this argument is not cognizable in a
§ 3582(c)(2) motion. See 

.
      AFFIRMED.




                                        2