Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40464/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40464-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maria Sanjuan Saldivar
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40464

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIA SANJUAN SALDIVAR,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:03-CR-182

Before DAVIS, JONES and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maria Sanjuan Saldivar (Saldivar), federal prisoner # 33611-079, seeks 

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 to reduce her sentence based on 

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

Saldivar is challenging the district court’s certification that her appeal was not 

 

* 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 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40464 Document: 00513371545 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2016
No. 15-40464

2

taken in good faith because it is frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 

202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Saldivar contends that, despite her career criminal status, she is entitled 

to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 based on the same 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors that supported the district court’s imposition of a downward 

variance. We review the district court’s denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for an 

abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 

2011). 

The record reflects that Saldivar was not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) 

sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because, as a career offender

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, she was not sentenced based on a guidelines 

range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See

United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 790-91 (5th Cir. 2009); § 3582(c)(2). 

Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion. See Anderson, 591 F.3d at 791.

This appeal does not present a nonfrivolous issue. See Howard v. King, 

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Saldivar’s IFP motion is 

DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 

202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-40464 Document: 00513371545 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2016