Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40274/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40274-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Duane Lamar Byers
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40274

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DUANE LAMAR BYERS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:11-CR-818-1

Before GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dwayne Lamar Byers, federal prisoner # 96454-279, 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 to reduce his sentence based on retroactive 

Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. By moving to proceed IFP, Byers is 

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

 

* 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

October 13, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40274 Document: 00513229580 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/13/2015
No. 15-40274

2

good faith because it is frivolous. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 

1997).

Byers contends that the district court erred in determining that he was 

not eligible for the sentencing reduction. However, as he simultaneously 

concedes, the district court found him eligible for the reduction but declined to 

exercise its discretion to reduce his sentence, determining that relief was 

unwarranted based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United 

States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). Alternatively, Byers argues that the district 

court abused its discretion in denying a sentencing reduction without a 

sufficient explanation and based on factors which were known at the time of 

original sentencing. He complains that the district court failed to consider new 

factors, including his participation in a residential drug treatment program.

The record reflects that the district court considered Byers’s motion as a 

whole, gave specific reasons for its denial, and referenced the relevant 

§ 3553(a) factors. Byers thus cannot show an abuse of discretion on the district 

court’s part. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011); 

United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009).

Byers has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his IFP 

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

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-40274 Document: 00513229580 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/13/2015