Case ID: f-appx_381/html/0385-01.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. James Louis POLK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-60434
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 14, 2010.
    Thomas W. Dawson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James Louis Polk, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

James Louis Polk, federal prisoner # 10155-042, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence. By moving to proceed IFP, Polk is challenging the district court’s certification decision that his appeal was not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

We review the district court’s denial of a Section 3582(c)(2) motion de novo. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009). Because Polk’s guidelines imprisonment range was not derived from the quantity of crack cocaine involved in the offense but rather from his career offender status, the district court was correct in concluding that a sentencing reduction was not permitted. See § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 790-91 (5th Cir. 2009).

Polk has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). His motion for IFP is denied and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cm. R. 42.2.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.