United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT July 21, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-51221
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CEDRIC DEON REED,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(A-99-CR-221-ALL-JN)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cedric Deon Reed, federal prisoner # 95287-080, appeals, pro
se, the denial of his postconviction motion for reduction of his
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Reed was convicted on
his guilty plea of conspiracy to carry a firearm in relation to a
drug-trafficking offense, in violation of former 18 U.S.C. § 924(o)
and 18 U.S.C. § 2. In calculating Reed’s offense level under the
Sentencing Guidelines, the district court added four levels for his
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
possession of a firearm in connection with the offense of
conviction, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).
In his motion to reduce his sentence, Reed asserted that he
should be resentenced without this four-level increase, in the
light of Guideline Amendment 599. The district court denied relief
without stating specific reasons. The district court’s ruling on
such a motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States
v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009 (5th Cir. 1995).
“Section 3582(c)(2) permits a district court to reduce a term
of imprisonment when it is based upon a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by an amendment to the Guidelines, if
such a reduction is consistent with the policy statements issued by
the Sentencing Commission.” United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas,
105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir. 1997). Section 1B1.10(c), p.s.,
provides that Amendment 599 is retroactive.
Amendment 599 amends the Commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4. The
amendment clarified “under what circumstances defendants sentenced
for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in conjunction with
convictions for other offenses may receive weapon enhancements
contained in the guidelines for those other offenses”. Amendment
599 (emphasis added). This does not apply to Reed, who was
sentenced for only one offense, which was not § 924(c).
2
Although he asserts in a conclusory fashion that the
application of Amendment 599 to § 2K2.4 and not to § 2K2.1 is
unconstitutional, Reed does not identify any issue for appellate
review. Appellants, including those proceeding pro se, must brief
the issues they present. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-
25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Reed also contends that his sentence should not have been
enhanced for possession because he never possessed a firearm. He
bases this on his assertion that he was convicted of conspiracy to
attempt to possess. This lacks merit because Reed was convicted of
conspiracy to use and carry a firearm during a drug-trafficking
crime; no attempt was alleged. Furthermore, the presentence
investigation report shows that Reed and his coconspirator
possessed the firearm in their vehicle. The district court did not
abuse its discretion by denying relief to Reed.
AFFIRMED
3