Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50539/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50539-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Van Goetz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50539

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARK VAN GOETZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:04-CR-49-1

Before GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mark Van Goetz, federal prisoner # 36036-180, moves for 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 seeking modification of his drug trafficking 

sentences based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. By moving 

to proceed IFP, Goetz is challenging the district court’s certification decision 

 

* 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

December 29, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50539 Document: 00513324059 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2015
No. 15-50539

2

that his appeal was not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. See Baugh 

v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

The district court implicitly determined that Goetz was eligible for a 

reduction but decided that a reduction was not warranted in Goetz’s case. See 

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). We review that decision for 

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

2011).

Goetz argues that the district court failed to reasonably consider the 

sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when it denied his motion. 

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

and considered the § 3553(a) factors and that its denial is not based on a clearly 

erroneous assessment of the evidence. Goetz cannot show that the district 

court abused its discretion by denying him a sentence reduction. See 

Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717; United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 

(5th Cir. 1995).

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

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Goetz’s 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: 15-50539 Document: 00513324059 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2015