UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-40739
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SUSAN ANN LINDSEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(6:90-CR-71-2)
_________________________________________________________________
March 21, 1996
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Susan Ann Lindsey, pro se, appeals the denial of her motion
for a reduction of sentence. We AFFIRM.
I.
After pleading guilty to possession of a listed chemical with
intent to manufacture a controlled substance, and possession of a
firearm during a drug-trafficking crime, Lindsey was sentenced in
May 1991 to ten years imprisonment for possession, and a
consecutive five-year term for the firearm offense. Her offense
*
Pursuant to Local 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
level for the possession offense was calculated pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, based on the amount of methamphetamine that could
have been manufactured with the precursor chemicals.
In 1995, Lindsey moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a
sentence reduction pursuant to § 2D1.11, which became effective in
November 1991, and established a base offense level for possession
of precursor chemicals. The district court denied the motion,
accepting the magistrate judge's finding (objected to by Lindsey)
that, because Lindsey's offense involved the attempt to manufacture
methamphetamine, retroactive application of § 2D1.11 would not
change the sentence, because § 2D1.11(c) provides that, if the
offense involved, inter alia, attempting to manufacture a
controlled substance, § 2D1.1 (the provision under which Lindsey
was sentenced) is applicable.
II.
A refusal to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed
only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26,
28-29 (5th Cir. 1994). Based upon our review of the record, the
finding that Lindsey's offense involved the attempt to manufacture
methamphetamine was not clearly erroneous. See United States v.
Mimms, 43 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, because the
sentence under § 2D1.11(c) would be the same as that imposed, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reduce
it.
- 2 -
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the denial of Lindsey's motion to
reduce sentence is
AFFIRMED.
- 3 -