
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tremell ARMSTEAD, also known as Mel Armstead, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 17-30439 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed December 18, 2017
    
      Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kevin G. Boitmann, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Spiro G. Latsis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Celia Clary Rhoads, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Tremell Armstead, federal prisoner # 31567-034, is serving a 180-month prison sentence for conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels in the drug quantity table of U.S.S.G. § 201.1(c).

In his sole issue on appeal, Armstead argues that the district court erred in determining that it was not authorized to consider a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction where the sentence was imposed pursuant to a binding plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) and not expressly tied to the Guidelines. Specifically, he asserts that this court’s adoption in United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807 (5th Cir. 2016), of Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence in Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011), “is erroneous because it misapplies the rule for determining the holding of a fractured Supreme Court opinion, and because the rule it adopts is itself erroneous.” Armstead acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, and he raises the issue to preserve it for further review.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     