Case ID: f-appx_633/html/0612-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Barry SALTER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50815
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 4, 2016.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert Barry Salter, Seagoville, TX, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Robert Barry Salter, federal prisoner # 53001-280, has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that subsequently was lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Amendment 782 did not reduce Salter’s guidelines sentencing range, and so he was ineligible for a sentencing reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2) & comment. (n.1(A)); United States v. Bowman, 632 F.3d 906, 910-11 (5th Cir.2011). Moreover, he has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in determining that the seriousness of Salter’s offense and the need to protect the public did not warrant a sentence below the varied sentence that he received. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir.2011).

Salter’s appeal does not present a non-frivolous issue and has not been brought in good faith. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). The motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.