Case: 12-10465 Document: 00512033360 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 25, 2012
No. 12-10465
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
CURTIS ONEAL RHINE,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:07-CR-183-1
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Proceeding pro se, Curtis Oneal Rhine, federal prisoner # 36888-177,
appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a
sentence reduction. He contends the court abused its discretion by: improperly
relying on his alleged participation in the Fish Bowl drug-trafficking ring; failing
to consider the various classes he completed during imprisonment; and refusing
to reduce his sentence in retaliation for his successful appeal in United States v.
Rhine, 583 F.3d 878 (5th Cir. 2009).
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-10465 Document: 00512033360 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2012
No. 12-10465
The district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587
F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). In considering Rhine’s motion, the district court
was required to, and expressly did, assess the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009). The court
properly considered Rhine’s alleged participation in the Fish Bowl drug-
trafficking ring as part of his history under § 3553(a)(1). United States v. Rhine,
637 F.3d 525, 529 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1001 (2012). Although
Rhine contends the district court failed to properly consider his post-sentencing
conduct, such consideration is not required. Evans, 587 F.3d at 673 & n.10;
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment n.1(B)(iii). Rhine’s retaliation claim also fails.
AFFIRMED.
2