United States v. Nathaniel Singleton

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Nathaniel Singleton

654 F. App'x 185

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 15, 2016

Docket15-30839

StatusUnpublished

This text of 654 F. App'x 185 (United States v. Nathaniel Singleton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Nathaniel Singleton, 654 F. App'x 185 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Nathaniel Singleton, federal prisoner # 34438-018, who was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He seeks to challenge the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion in which he sought a sentence reduction pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Amendments 782 and 788, *186 which retroactively lowered certain offense levels under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c).

Singleton’s guidelines range was not based on the quantity of cocaine pursuant to § 2Dl.l(c); his guidelines range was based on U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. Accordingly, he was not sentenced based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission, and the amendments do not apply to him. See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 791 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying him a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Finally, because there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995), Singleton cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel, see Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991).

Because the appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous, Singleton’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Nathaniel Singleton, federal prisoner # 34438-018, who was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He seeks to challenge the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion in which he sought a sentence reduction pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Amendments 782 and 788, *186 which retroactively lowered certain offense levels under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c).

Singleton’s guidelines range was not based on the quantity of cocaine pursuant to § 2Dl.l(c); his guidelines range was based on U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. Accordingly, he was not sentenced based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission, and the amendments do not apply to him. See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 791 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying him a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Finally, because there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995), Singleton cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel, see Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991).

Because the appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous, Singleton’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 F. App'x 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-nathaniel-singleton-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack