United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20886
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS ALEGRIA-MORENO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:89-CR-394-4
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos Alegria-Moreno (Alegria), federal prisoner # 51120-
079, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion to
reduce sentence. The district court’s ruling is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 430
(5th Cir. 1994).
Alegria argues that the district court abused its discretion
in denying his motion, asserting that, pursuant to retroactive
Amendment 484 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, packing materials must be
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-20886
-2-
excluded from calculating drug quantities for sentencing
purposes. He conclusionally states that the 163 kilograms of
cocaine attributed to him in the PSR included 12.6 kilograms of
duct tape and packaging and that, without those wrappings, he
would have been held responsible for only 150 kilograms of
cocaine, which would have reduced his total offense level and
removed the possibility of a life sentence.
Even prior to Amendment 484, packaging materials were not to
be included when determining the amount of drugs attributable to
a defendant for sentencing purposes. See, e.g., Chapman v.
United States, 500 U.S. 453, 463 (1991). Because Alegria could
have raised his argument on direct appeal, it is not cognizable
under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29
(5th Cir. 1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying Alegria’s motion. Accordingly, its judgment is
AFFIRMED.