Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50776/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50776-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eugene Mona
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50776

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EUGENE MONA, also known as Gino,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CR-59-7

Before SMITH, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eugene Mona, federal prisoner # 10149-280, 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 to reduce his sentence based on retroactive 

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. By moving to proceed IFP on 

appeal, Mona challenges 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). 

* 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

March 12, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50776 Document: 00515341892 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2020
No. 19-50776

2

Our inquiry into an appellant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal 

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

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

and citations omitted). If the appeal is frivolous, we may dismiss it sua sponte. 

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

We review de novo whether a district court has authority to reduce a 

sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273, 

276 (5th Cir. 2010). Although Mona’s base offense level may have been

indirectly based on the drug trafficking guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (2008), that 

guideline mandated a cross-reference to the first-degree murder guideline, see

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3), (d)(1) and U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1, which was utilized to 

calculate Mona’s total offense level. Therefore, drug quantity did not affect 

Mona’s guidelines range. Further, the fact that Mona was not convicted of 

murder was irrelevant under §§ 2D1.1(a)(3), (d)(1). See United States v. 

Duhon, 541 F.3d 391, 395-96 (5th Cir. 2008). Thus, the district court did not 

err in denying his § 3582(c) motion on the ground that Mona was ineligible for 

relief. See § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).

Because Mona fails to raise a nonfrivolous issue, his motion for leave to 

proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. 

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

Case: 19-50776 Document: 00515341892 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2020