United States v. Michael Short

Case: 16-30346 Document: 00514007168 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 16-30346
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar May 25, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MICHAEL SHORT, also known as Nate,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:96-CR-232-1
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Michael Short, federal prisoner # 22355-034, appeals the district court’s
denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant
to Amendments 591 and 607. He contends that the district court erroneously
determined that Amendment 591 did not apply because he was not convicted
of an offense referenced in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2. In addition, Short asserts that
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-30346 Document: 00514007168 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2017
No. 16-30346
the district court did not follow the correct procedure in calculating his original
advisory guidelines range.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to
reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d
667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Amendments 591 and 607 did not have the effect of
lowering Short’s guidelines range. Therefore, Short was not eligible for a
sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.
817, 826-27 (2010); United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir.
2009); United States v. Wilson, 267 F. App’x 317, 318 (5th Cir. 2008). Further,
Short’s claims regarding the validity of his original sentence are not cognizable
in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712
(5th Cir. 2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Short’s motion. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826-27.
AFFIRMED.
2