
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roque Urdiales GARCIA, also known as El Profe, also known as Roberto, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-20761.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 21, 2006.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jeffery Alan Babcock, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roque Urdíales Garcia, Federal Correctional Institution Greenville Greenville, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Roque Urdíales Garcia appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence. Garcia contends that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 591 (2000) to the Sentencing Guidelines. Garcia’s motions for leave to address this court and for appointment of counsel are denied.

Garcia contends that Amendment 591 is designated for retroactive application and mandates the use of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5 (1987) to determine the offense level and the sentencing guidelines range for his continuing criminal enterprise conviction. Garcia asserts that in 1990, the sentencing court applied U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (1987) to determine his total offense level of 42 and his sentencing guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment. Garcia contends that under § 2D1.5 (1987), his offense level would be, at most, 38, and his sentencing guidelines range would be 235 to 293 months of imprisonment.

Garcia has not shown that the district court relied on an “incorrect view of the law” in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. United States v. Thompson, 130 F.3d 676, 683 (5th Cir.1997). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Garcia’s § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence. United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir.1997). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED; all outstanding motions are DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     