United States v. Causey ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 26, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30823
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAMON CAUSEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:94-CR-381-3
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Damon Causey, federal prisoner # 24328-034, appeals the
district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his motion for a
reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He
argues that Amendment 591 to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,
coupled with principles set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530
U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 524 U.S. 296 (2004),
demonstrate that his sentence should be reduced.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-30823
-2-
Amendment 591 made no downward modification to the guideline
under which Causey was sentenced in 1996. See Amendment 591,
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Supp. to Appendix C, p. 30
(2002); U.S.S.G. § 2H1.1 (1995); U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1 (1995). The
district court therefore did not abuse its discretion when it
determined that Amendment 591 provided no bases for modification
of Causey’s sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). See United
States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir. 1994).
Moreover, to the extent that Causey seeks to challenge his
sentence based on Apprendi and Blakely by filing a successive
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, he has failed to make the requisite
prima facie showing either that his claim is based on newly
discovered evidence or that he relies on a new rule of
constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review
by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; In re Elwood, 408
F.3d 211, 212 (5th Cir. 2005). He therefore does not meet the
standard for filing a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
Elwood, 408 F.3d at 212. The district court also did not err
when it declined to address Causey’s Apprendi claims, because
Causey did not have permission of this court to proceed on a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district court. See 28
U.S.C. § 2255.
The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.