Case: 20-40331 Document: 00515927090 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 6, 2021
No. 20-40331
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Darrin Lashaon Betts,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:13-CR-22-1
Before Haynes, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Darrin Lashaon Betts, federal prisoner # 21755-078, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. Betts
pleaded guilty in 2015 pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-40331 Document: 00515927090 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2021
No. 20-40331
11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). He
contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying the
§ 3582(c)(2) motion despite the plea agreement because, under Hughes v.
United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018), both the Government and the district
court acknowledged the applicable guidelines range at sentencing and
because he did not receive a benefit from the plea agreement.
This court reviews the district court’s denial of Betts’s § 3582(c)(2)
motion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713,
717 (5th Cir. 2011). Section 3582(c)(2) allows for the discretionary reduction
of a sentence when the defendant is sentenced to a prison term based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission under 28 U.S.C. § 994(o) if the reduction is consistent with
Sentencing Commission policy statements. § 3582(c)(2). A two-step
process governs a motion for a sentence reduction. Id. First, the district
court determines if the defendant is eligible for a reduction under U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10 and the extent of the reduction authorized by the amended
guidelines range. Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717. If the defendant is eligible for
a reduction, the district court proceeds to the second step to determine
whether, in its discretion, a reduction is warranted in consideration of any
applicable § 3553(a) factors. Id. Amendment 782, which became effective
on November 1, 2014, amended the drug quantity tables and lowered by two
levels the base offense levels for certain drug offenses. See U.S.S.G., App.
C., Amend. 782; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d).
As the Government points out, the district court applied Amendment
782 in the determination of Betts’s guidelines range at sentencing. Thus,
there is no new amendment to consider. Additionally, the district court at
the original sentencing made clear that even without the guidelines, the
sentence imposed would have been the same. Accordingly, Betts has not
2
Case: 20-40331 Document: 00515927090 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/06/2021
No. 20-40331
shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a
§ 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction.
AFFIRMED.
3
United States v. Betts
Combined Opinion