Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-51142/USCOURTS-ca5-15-51142-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Allen Lang
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-51142

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID ALLEN LANG,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-143-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Allen Lang, federal prisoner # 57600-180, has moved for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the denial of his motion for a 

reduction of his sentence for possession with intent to distribute more than 50 

grams of actual methamphetamine. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district 

court denied him leave to proceed IFP on the ground that his appeal is not 

taken in good faith and is frivolous. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Lang

 

* 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

June 22, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-51142 Document: 00513560842 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2016
No. 15-51142

2

has challenged the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in 

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

into Lang’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points 

arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” See Howard v. King, 

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). 

Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s 

sentence based on amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 994(o). See United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009). 

In determining whether an amendment has altered a movant’s sentencing 

guidelines range, the district court must consider the sentence that would have 

been imposed had the amended Guidelines been in effect at the time of the

original sentencing. United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 711 (5th Cir. 

2011). Lang was held accountable for the equivalent of 100,808.8 kilograms of 

marijuana, which resulted in a base offense level of 38 under the Guidelines in 

effect when he was sentenced. Under the amended version of § 2D1.1(c)(1), a 

base offense level of 38 applies if the offense involves 90,000 kilograms or more 

of marijuana. See § 2D1.1(c)(1). Amendment 782 thus did not change Lang’s 

offense level or lower his guidelines range. Because a § 3582(c)(2) reduction is 

not authorized if an amendment does not lower the defendant’s applicable 

guidelines range, the district court did not err in determining that Lang was 

not eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2). See § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s. 

This appeal does not involve legal points arguable on their merits. See 

Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Lang’s IFP motion is DENIED, and his appeal is 

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

 Case: 15-51142 Document: 00513560842 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2016