Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50601/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50601-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Dale Curtis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50601

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STEVEN DALE CURTIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:02-CR-186-2

Before GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steven Dale Curtis, federal prisoner # 26558-180, filed a motion under 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines, 

seeking a reduction of his 235-month sentence for conspiracy to manufacture 

methamphetamine. The district court determined that Curtis was eligible for 

the reduction, but it denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion, and it also denied Curtis’s 

motion for reconsideration. Curtis now seeks leave to proceed in forma 

 

* 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 12, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50601 Document: 00513379603 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2016
No. 15-50601

2

pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his motions. We 

construe Curtis’s motion as a challenge to 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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

We review the decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to 

§ 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 

713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its 

decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. 

Id. 

The district court did not make new Guidelines determinations in 

denying Curtis’s motion; nor did it punish him twice for the same offense. 

Albeit implicitly, the court began by determining that Curtis was eligible for 

the reduction, and by determining his amended Guideline range. See Dillon v. 

United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). The court then exercised its discretion 

to conclude that a reduction was not warranted under the particular 

circumstances of the case, taking into account the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

sentencing factors. Id. at 827. Curtis’s contention that the district court was 

obliged to sentence him at the bottom of the amended Guideline range is 

without merit. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009) 

(noting that a district court is not obliged to grant § 3582(c)(2) relief). Finally, 

although the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 directs that a district court may 

consider post-sentencing behavior in determining whether a reduction is 

warranted, the decision whether to grant the reduction is discretionary. See 

id. 

In sum, Curtis has not shown that the district court committed legal 

error, or that it abused its discretion in denying his motion. See Henderson, 

636 F.3d at 717. Because the appeal is without arguable merit, Curtis’s motion 

 Case: 15-50601 Document: 00513379603 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2016
No. 15-50601

3

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: 15-50601 Document: 00513379603 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/12/2016