Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-51057/USCOURTS-ca5-15-51057-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Christopher Mincy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-51057

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHARLES CHRISTOPHER MINCY, also known as Charles Mincy,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-5-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Christopher Mincy, federal prisoner # 09002-380, moves to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the denial of his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of his felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm 

sentence, arguing that Amendment 784 to the Sentencing Guidelines should 

be retroactively applied to reduce his advisory guidelines range.

* 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

June 14, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-51057 Document: 00513547507 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2016
No. 15-51057

By moving for IFP, Mincy is challenging 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). Our inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves 

legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. 

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219–20 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). We review the district court’s decision whether to reduce a 

sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion, while the court’s 

interpretation of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo and its findings of fact for 

clear error. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009).

Amendment 784 amended U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1), which was inapplicable 

to the calculation of Mincy’s guidelines range. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual, supp. to app. C, Amendment 784, at 77 (2015). Insofar as the 

amendment clarified what constituted relevant conduct for a § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) 

enhancement, Mincy’s offense level did not run afoul of that clarification. 

Mincy has not shown that his appeal involves a nonfrivolous issue. See

Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

2

 Case: 15-51057 Document: 00513547507 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2016