Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10755/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10755-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Selwyn Macfield Martin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10755

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

SELWYN MACFIELD MARTIN, also known as Red, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:08-CR-98-31

Before JOLLY, DAVIS and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Selwyn Macfield Martin, federal prisoner # 27049-037, seeks leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on retroactive Amendment 

782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. By moving to proceed IFP, Martin is challenging the 

district court’s certification 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).

 

* 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

Fif h Circuit

FILED

January 26, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10755 Document: 00513850731 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2017
No. 16-10755

2 

 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 guidelines range that 

was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Because 

Amendment 782 did not reduce Martin’s guidelines range, he was not eligible 

for a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); § 1B1.10, comment. 

(n.1(A)); United States v. Bowman, 632 F.3d 906, 910-11 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Moreover, a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not a full resentencing or an opportunity 

to challenge the original sentence. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 

825-26 (2010); United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Thus, Martin’s arguments regarding the validity of his original sentence are 

not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United States v. Hernandez, 

645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Martin has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on 

appeal. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the 

motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as 

frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-10755 Document: 00513850731 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2017