Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50568/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50568-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antoine Earl Powell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50568

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANTOINE EARL POWELL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:05-CR-219-1

Before GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*

Antoine Earl Powell, federal prisoner # 56375-180, seeks leave to proceed 

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

to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). By moving to proceed 

IFP, Powell challenges the district court’s certification decision that his appeal 

was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 

1997). Our inquiry is limited to whether Powell has demonstrated good faith 

 

* 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 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50568 Document: 00513265364 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2015
No. 15-50568

2

by raising any non-frivolous issue, meaning one arguable on its merits. 

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

In 2006, Powell was convicted of aiding and abetting possession with 

intent to distribute at least 50 grams of crack cocaine (count one) and aiding 

and abetting possession of a firearm during the commission of a drugtrafficking crime (count two). He was sentenced to 151 months on count one, 

to run consecutively to a 60-month sentence on count two. Powell’s sentence 

was subsequently reduced, pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), to the statutory minimum 

sentence of 120 months.

Powell argues that he is entitled to a reduction of his sentence because 

the Government breached the plea agreement, the district court committed 

procedural errors at sentencing, and Amendment 782 to the United States 

Sentencing Guidelines—which reduced the offense levels for various drug 

offenses—applies retroactively to his case. He further asserts that his sentence 

was substantively unreasonable and based on facts that he did not admit and 

that the government did not prove.

Section 3582(c)(2) permits a district court to reduce a sentence that was 

“based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the 

Sentencing Commission.” United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 

2009). Powell’s Amendment 782 argument has no merit because the district 

court lacked authority to reduce his sentence below the ten-year statutory 

minimum. See United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575, 578–81 (5th Cir. 2010); 

United States v. Mosley, 403 F. App’x 934, 935 (5th Cir. 2010); see also 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) (2006). Powell’s remaining proffered issues are not arguable 

on their merits because a § 3582(c)(2) motion may not be used to challenge “the 

appropriateness of the original sentence.” United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 

1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995).

 Case: 15-50568 Document: 00513265364 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2015
No. 15-50568

3

Powell fails to demonstrate a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, 

his 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. His motion 

for immediate release is DENIED.

 Case: 15-50568 Document: 00513265364 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/10/2015