Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40051/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40051-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Fernando Valdez
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40051

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FERNANDO VALDEZ, also known as Spook,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-65-11

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fernando Valdez, federal prisoner # 58286-179, moves to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing 

Guidelines. Valdez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to 

distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and was sentenced as a career 

offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 to 210 months of imprisonment. The district 

 

* 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

September 3, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40051 Document: 00513180764 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2015
No. 15-40051

2

court denied Valdez’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, finding that Valdez was ineligible 

for a reduction of sentence because his guidelines range was based on his 

status as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and was not based on a drug 

quantity determined under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.

By moving to proceed IFP, Valdez is challenging the certification that his 

appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th 

Cir. 1997). We review the district court's decision whether to reduce a sentence 

under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion, while the court’s interpretation of 

the Guidelines is reviewed de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. 

United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). A district court must 

first determine whether a prisoner is eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2) before 

determining whether to grant a reduction and the extent of the reduction. 

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010).

Valdez contends that the court failed to provide an explanation for the 

denial of his motion; the court failed to review his postconviction conduct; and 

the court failed to notify Valdez of the contents of a new presentence report. 

Valdez further asserts that the court’s denial of his motion created a disparity 

in his sentence.

Because Valdez’s guidelines range was not based on drug quantity but 

rather his status as a career offender, the district court was correct in 

concluding that Valdez was not eligible for a reduction under Amendment 782 

and § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 790-91 (5th Cir. 

2009); see U.S.S.G., App. C., Amend. 782 (amending the drug quantity table 

set forth at U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)); see also U.S.S.G., App. C, Amend. 788

(providing that Amendment 782 becomes retroactively applicable on November 

1, 2015). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to address Valdez’s remaining 

arguments. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826-27.

 Case: 15-40051 Document: 00513180764 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2015
No. 15-40051

3

Valdez has failed to show that his appeal involves a nonfrivolous issue. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). His IFP motion is 

DENIED. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2; Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24.

 Case: 15-40051 Document: 00513180764 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/03/2015