Case: 24-20052 Document: 37-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 24-20052 August 30, 2024 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus John Willard Broussard, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22-CR-280-1 ______________________________ Before Graves, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * John Willard Broussard, federal prisoner # 01914-510, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his 188-month sentence for aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a controlled substance. His motion was based on Part A of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Broussard _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-20052 Document: 37-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/30/2024

No. 24-20052

argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion, because he was eligible for a sentence reduction insofar as his criminal history category under the amended Guideline is III, and his amended guidelines range is 135 to 168 months.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 710 (5th Cir. 2018). Contrary to Broussard’s assertions, the district court did not deny him a sentence reduction because he was ineligible for one. Rather, the district court denied him a reduction based on its weighing of, inter alia, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27 (2010). Because Broussard does not challenge the district court’s denial of relief based on its weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, any such challenge is abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Broussard has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Calton, 900 F.3d at 710.

Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.