USA v. Danelle Hall
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-30899 Affirmed] Judge: RHB , Judge: JLD , Judge: PRO. Mandate pull date is 06/07/2011 [10-30899]
Case: 10-30899 Document: 00511479761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
May 17, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:05-CR-243-5
Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
In 2007, Danelle Hall, federal prisoner # 35171-177, pleaded guilty to
distribution of five or more grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Based on an enhancement pursuant to
his previous guilty plea to possession of cocaine, Hall was sentenced to the
statutory mandatory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment, pursuant to 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), 851.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
Case: 10-30899 Document: 00511479761 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2011
Proceeding pro se, Hall appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
motion for reduction of sentence. He relies on: the retroactive amendments to
the Sentencing Guidelines for crack-cocaine offenses; United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), and its progeny; and the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act (FSA)
(reduced disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses), which, he
contends, should apply retroactively.
Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s
sentence in certain cases in which the sentencing range has been subsequently
lowered by the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235,
237 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009). The district court’s decision
whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of
discretion; its interpretation of the Guidelines, de novo. United States v. Evans,
587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2010).
Because Hall received the mandatory minimum sentence, he was not
eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief under the recent crack-cocaine Guideline
amendments. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 851; United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d
429, 430-31 (5th Cir. 1994). Hall’s assertion that he is entitled to resentencing
under the FSA is without merit: the FSA does not apply retroactively. United
States v. Doggins, 633 F.3d 379, 384 (5th Cir. 2011). To the extent Hall urges
our court to consider the effect of Booker and its progeny, his contention is
unavailing. The principles of Booker and its progeny do not apply to § 3582(c)(2)
proceedings, and a sentencing court lacks discretion to reduce the sentence any
further than the reduction allowed under Guideline § 1B1.10 (limits
circumstances under which defendant is entitled to § 3582(c)(2) sentence
reduction based on retroactive Guideline amendments). Doublin, 572 F.3d at
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?