Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50735/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50735-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Santiago Anguiano
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50735

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SANTIAGO ANGUIANO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-371-1

Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Santiago Anguiano, federal prisoner # 43457-180, seeks 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 reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782 

to the Sentencing Guidelines. By moving to proceed IFP, Anguiano is 

challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in 

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

 

* 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 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50735 Document: 00513665683 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2016
No. 15-50735

2

into a litigant’s 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) (citation omitted).

The Supreme Court has prescribed a two-step inquiry for a district court 

that is considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 

826 (2010). The court must first determine whether a prisoner is eligible for a 

reduction as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id. If he is eligible, then the district 

court must “consider any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine 

whether, in its discretion,” any reduction is warranted under the particular 

facts of the case. Id. at 827. 

The district court properly concluded that Anguiano was ineligible for a

reduction because he was sentenced under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 as a career 

offender. See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 790-91 (5th Cir. 2009); 

§ 3582(c)(2). Anguiano’s arguments that he was not sentenced as a career 

offender are meritless. To the extent he raises arguments challenging alleged 

defects in his original sentencing, these are not cognizable in the instant 

proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831. As Anguiano was not sentenced under 

a Guideline lowered by Amendment 782, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion when it denied his motion. See Anderson, 591 F.3d at 791. 

Thus, Anguiano has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue 

on appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his IFP motion is 

DENIED. Additionally, because this appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

 Case: 15-50735 Document: 00513665683 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2016