Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50583/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50583-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keith O. Cobb
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50583

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEITH O. COBB,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:93-CR-96-2

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Keith O. Cobb, federal prisoner # 60806-080, seeks 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 Amendments 782 and 788 

to the Sentencing Guidelines. By moving to proceed IFP, Cobb is challenging 

the district court’s certification 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).

 

* 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

January 7, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50583 Document: 00513333924 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2016
No. 15-50583

2

First, Cobb challenges several factual statements made by the district 

court in giving reasons for denying the instant § 3582(c)(2) motion. The factual 

statements made by the district court are grounded in facts recited in the 

presentence report. Cobb’s challenges to the facts used to determine his 

original sentence are unavailing insofar as a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not the 

appropriate vehicle to raise issues related to the original sentencing. See 

United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. 

Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995).

Second, Cobb contends the district court's denial of relief indicates that 

it was blind to the amendments’ purpose of reducing the overpopulation of the 

federal prison system. However, in denying relief, the district court referenced 

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and its order reflects that it gave due 

consideration to Cobb’s motion as a whole. Accordingly, the district court did 

not abuse its discretion when it refused to grant Cobb a reduction in his 

sentence. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011); 

Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1010.

Cobb has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. 

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

motion is DENIED. Additionally, because this appeal is frivolous, it is 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-50583 Document: 00513333924 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2016