Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50815/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50815-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Barry Salter
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50815

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT BARRY SALTER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:09-CR-191

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 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 4, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50815 Document: 00513369835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2016
No. 15-50815

2

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 nonfrivolous 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.

 Case: 15-50815 Document: 00513369835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2016