
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Israel ESPERICUETA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-20682
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 25, 2004.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Israel Espericueta, Bastrop, TX, pro se.
    Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.
   REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge.

In this appeal we review the district court’s denial of Defendant — Appellant, Israel Espericueta’s, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion and his motion for a completed ruling.

Esperieueta was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, conspiracy to launder money, and aiding and abetting money laundering. He now argues that his sentence should be reduced by the retroactive application of two recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines: (1) a November 1, 1998 clarifying amendment to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 and its commentary, labeled as amendment 585 in Appendix C of the Guidelines, and (2) a November 1, 2002 amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 and the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, labeled as Amendment 640 in Appendix C of the Guidelines.

Neither Amendment 585, nor Amendment 640 are listed in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(e) as amendments to be applied retroactively, thus Esperieueta is not entitled to collateral relief. See U.S.S.G. lB1.10(c); United States v. Davidson, 283 F.3d 681, 684 (5th Cir.2002); United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 217 (5th Cir.1996). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Esperieueta a reduction of his sentence. See United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 28-29 (5th Cir.1994).

Further, we affirm the district court’s denial of Espericueta’s motion for completed ruling as we assume the district court conducted the proper review absent evidence to the contrary. Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir.1993).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision. 
      
      . Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     