Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-40326/USCOURTS-ca5-24-40326-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christian Morales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-40326

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Christian Morales, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:22-CR-1384-1

______________________________

Before Southwick, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Christian Morales, federal prisoner # 13910-510, moves for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the denial of his 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 

821 to the Sentencing Guidelines, based on his status as a zero-point offender. 

By moving to proceed IFP in this court, Morales is challenging the district 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 2, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-40326 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024
No. 24-40326

2

court’s ruling that he did not demonstrate a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 

See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into 

whether the appeal is taken in 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 citations omitted).

Firstly, Morales argues that the district court abused its discretion in 

failing to determine whether he was eligible for a sentence reduction, as is 

required by Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). Contrary to his 

assertion, the district court did determine that he was eligible for a reduction. 

In addition, Morales asserts that the district court abused its discretion in its 

evaluation of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors because it failed to take into 

consideration his postconviction rehabilitation. The district court’s opinion 

reflects that it considered the record, which included Morales’s arguments 

regarding his rehabilitation. Morales’s disagreement with the district court’s 

balancing of the § 3553(a) factors is not sufficient to show an abuse of 

discretion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672-73 (5th Cir. 2009).

Morales has failed to show he has a nonfrivolous argument that the 

district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See

United States v. Quintanilla, 868 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 2017); Howard, 707 

F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is 

DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d 

at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 24-40326 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2024