United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 17, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41185
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
REGINALD WAYNE BASSETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:97-CR-72-ALL
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reginald Wayne Bassett, federal prisoner # 06752-078,
appeals the denial of his motion to reduce the sentence imposed
for his conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e). The motion argued that
Amendments 591 and 599 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines
apply retroactively to and authorize a reduction in his sentence
and that his sentence should be reduced because he did not plead
guilty to the sentencing enhancement set forth in § 924(e).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41185
-2-
Abandoning the arguments originally presented in his motion,
Bassett seeks on appeal to raise two claims that were not
presented before the district court: (1) that prior to sentencing
Bassett, the district court failed to address Bassett’s objection
to the presentence report and (2) that Bassett’s trial counsel
was ineffective because he did not voice the objection at the
sentencing hearing, did not object to the district court’s
failure to address the objection, and did not assert a direct
appeal concerning the issue.
While Bassett’s motion for reduction of sentence is
characterized as a motion pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 35 and
contains arguments based on 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), neither of
those provisions is a proper vehicle for raising the claims
Bassett seeks to assert for the first time on appeal. See
§ 3582(c)(2); Rule 35. In addition, “[t]his court will not
consider an issue that a party fails to raise in the district
court absent extraordinary circumstances,” which do not exist
here. Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th
Cir. 1999). Because Bassett has abandoned his original arguments
and his new arguments are not properly before this court on
appeal, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.