Case: 19-11337 Document: 00515824328 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 16, 2021
No. 19-11337 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Michael Gene Williams,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:09-CR-36-1
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Michael Gene Williams, federal prisoner # 28042-077, has appealed
the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under
Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. At his initial sentencing, Williams
was found to be a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and was sentenced
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-11337 Document: 00515824328 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2021
No. 19-11337
to 327 total months in prison, which was within the advisory guidelines range
calculated under the career-offender provision. The district court denied the
First Step Act motion based on its conclusion that Williams was eligible for a
reduction, but a 327-month sentence was proper based on his criminal history
and the nature and circumstances of his crimes of conviction. We review the
district court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Batiste,
980 F.3d 466, 469 (5th Cir. 2020).
Williams maintains that the district court erred in concluding that his
guidelines range was not affected by application of the First Step Act. His
claim is misguided. Although the Fair Sentencing Act reduced the statutory
maximum sentence for his conviction for possession with intent to distribute
cocaine base, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S.
260, 269 (2012), application of that lower statutory maximum does not affect
the guidelines calculations under the relevant provisions of § 4B1.1, see
United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414, 418 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct.
285 (2019); § 4B1.1. Williams’s eligibility for a sentence reduction does not
establish that he is entitled to one. See United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315,
321 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2699 (2020).
Further, Williams argues that the denial of his motion violated his due
process rights. However, because the grant of a reduction is not mandatory,
his claim lacks merit. See First Step Act of 2018, § 404(c), Pub. L. No. 115-
391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018); Jackson, 945 F.3d at 319.
Williams also argues that the district court did not properly weigh the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. He asserts that the district court gave
inordinate weight to his criminal history and to the facts underlying his
offenses of conviction and failed to credit properly the evidence establishing
his post-sentencing rehabilitation.
2
Case: 19-11337 Document: 00515824328 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/16/2021
No. 19-11337
The record reflects that the district court declined to grant a reduction
after it reviewed the parties’ arguments, the record, and the § 3553(a) factors.
The district court determined that Williams’s post-sentencing behavior did
not outweigh the circumstances before it at his initial sentencing, including,
inter alia, his offense conduct and his criminal history. The district court was
not required to consider his post-sentencing conduct and could consider his
criminal history and the nature of his offenses. See Jackson, 945 F.3d at 321-
22. Because the district court decided to deny Williams’s motion after giving
him a renewed, individualized assessment, he has failed to establish that the
district court abused its discretion. See Batiste, 980 F.3d at 475-78.
The order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3