Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41203/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41203-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dalila Sanchez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41203

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DALILA SANCHEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:11-CR-1111-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dalila Sanchez, federal inmate # 01843-379, moves this court for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of 

her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. By moving to 

proceed IFP, she is challenging the district court’s determination that she was 

not entitled to appeal IFP. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 

1997); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5). 

 

* 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

November 8, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41203 Document: 00513751415 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2016
No. 15-41203

2

To proceed IFP, Sanchez’s appeal must involve “‘legal points arguable on 

their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 

(5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). Sanchez does not challenge the basis for the 

district court’s determination that she was not entitled to proceed IFP on 

appeal because she was not eligible for a sentence reduction insofar as her 

guideline range was unchanged by Amendment 782. Thus, she has abandoned 

any challenge to that determination. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy 

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, her arguments that she should have been 

charged with simple possession rather than conspiracy and should have 

received a lower sentence based on her role in the offense are not properly 

before the court in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 

U.S. 817, 831 (2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a 

resentencing; rather it permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds 

established by the Sentencing Commission).

Accordingly, this appeal does not present a nonfrivolous issue and has 

not been brought in good faith. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220 (5th Cir. 1983). 

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: 15-41203 Document: 00513751415 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2016