Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50894/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50894-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Scott
Movant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50327

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHARLES SCOTT,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:13-CR-176-3

Consolidated with --------------------------------------------------------

No. 16-50894

In re: CHARLES SCOTT,

Movant

Motion for an order authorizing

the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, Waco to consider

a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 7, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50894 Document: 00513667272 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2016
No. 16-50327 c/w

No. 16-50894

2

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Scott, federal prisoner # 23593-380, moves this court for leave to 

appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the denial of his motion to reduce his 

sentence in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). He also 

moves for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion 

based on Johnson. We consolidate the cases, deny all motions, and dismiss the 

appeal from the denial of the motion to reduce the sentence.

By moving to appeal IFP, Scott challenges the certification that his 

appeal is not 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, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). We may dismiss the appeal if 

“it is apparent that an appeal would be meritless.” Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 

& n.24; see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

The district court explicitly declined to construe Scott’s motion for a 

sentence reduction as a § 2255 motion and instead construed it as a motion 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Nonetheless, the motion based on Johnson lacked 

merit. Johnson invalidated the so-called “residual clause” definition of “violent 

felony” found at 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), a part of the Armed Career 

Criminal Act (ACCA). But Scott’s sentence was not based on the ACCA or on 

his being a career offender under any statute or Sentencing Guideline. Nor 

was any prior offense treated as a crime of violence or a violent felony under 

the ACCA or the Guidelines. Johnson thus has no relevance to Scott’s 

 

* 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.

 Case: 16-50894 Document: 00513667272 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2016
No. 16-50327 c/w

No. 16-50894

3

sentence. Accordingly, Scott’s appeal of the denial of his motion to reduce his 

sentence lacks arguable merit. His IFP motion is DENIED and his appeal is 

DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. Scott’s motion for appointment of counsel is 

also DENIED. The Government’s motions for summary affirmance or for an 

extension of time for briefing are DENIED AS MOOT.

After the district court denied Scott’s constructive § 3582 motion, Scott 

filed an initial § 2255 motion that is still pending in the district court. Because 

Scott’s first § 2255 motion is pending, his motion for authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. See § 2255(h).

 Case: 16-50894 Document: 00513667272 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/07/2016