01-30219•United States v. Kingsley
01-30219Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit13 de dez. de 2001
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30219
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER KINGSLEY, also known as Keg,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CR-50079-1
--------------------
December 12, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Christopher Kingsley, federal inmate #09803-035, moves for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the
denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. "To proceed on
appeal [IFP], a litigant must be economically eligible, and his
appeal must not be frivolous." Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't,
811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986).
The only possible issue for Kingsley to raise is the
propriety of the district court’s denial of the 18 U.S.C.
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 01-30219
-2-
§ 3582(c)(2) motion. Kingsley contended in the district court
that an amendment to the guidelines, which purportedly altered
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 and the method for determining the relevant
cocaine quantity corresponding to Kingsley’s base offense level,
became effective November 1, 2000, and is given retroactive
effect pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, p.s. Section 1B1.10(c)
does not list a retroactively applied amendment that would affect
Kingsley’s sentence. Kingsley was not entitled to a reduced
sentence. See United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 218 (5th Cir.
1996). The district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Kingsley’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v.
Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 28 (5th Cir. 1994).
Because the appeal does not raise any issue of arguable
merit, see Jackson, 811 F.2d at 261, IT IS ORDERED that IFP is
DENIED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Because the appeal is frivolous,
it is DISMISSED.
APPEAL DISMISSED. MOTION DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.