United States v. Steve Carroll

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Steve Carroll

685 F. App'x 303

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 2017

Docket16-50054 Summary Calendar

StatusUnpublished

This text of 685 F. App'x 303 (United States v. Steve Carroll) 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. Steve Carroll, 685 F. App'x 303 (5th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Steve McGary Carroll, federal prisoner # 25236-056, seeks leave to proceed in *304 forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, By moving to proceed IFP, Carroll is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into a litigant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The Supreme Court has prescribed a two-step inquiry for a district court that is considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). The court must first determine whether a prisoner is eligible for a reduction as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id. If he is eligible, then the district court must “consider any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion,” any reduction is warranted under the particular facts of the case. Id. at 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683.

The district court properly concluded that Carroll was ineligible for a reduction because he was sentenced pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, which stipulated a particular sentence without reference to the Guidelines, See United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807, 811-12 (5th Cir. 2016). As Carroll was not sentenced under a Guideline lowered by Amendment 782, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his motion.

Thus, Carroll has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his IFP motion is DENIED. Because his appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 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 *304 the limited circumstances set forth in 55th Cm, R. 47.5,4,

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

PER CURIAM: *

Steve McGary Carroll, federal prisoner # 25236-056, seeks leave to proceed in *304 forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, By moving to proceed IFP, Carroll is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into a litigant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The Supreme Court has prescribed a two-step inquiry for a district court that is considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). The court must first determine whether a prisoner is eligible for a reduction as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id. If he is eligible, then the district court must “consider any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion,” any reduction is warranted under the particular facts of the case. Id. at 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683.

The district court properly concluded that Carroll was ineligible for a reduction because he was sentenced pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, which stipulated a particular sentence without reference to the Guidelines, See United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807, 811-12 (5th Cir. 2016). As Carroll was not sentenced under a Guideline lowered by Amendment 782, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his motion.

Thus, Carroll has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his IFP motion is DENIED. Because his appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 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 *304 the limited circumstances set forth in 55th Cm, R. 47.5,4,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 F. App'x 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-steve-carroll-ca5-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack