Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41445/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41445-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fidel Torres
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41445

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

FIDEL TORRES,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-1659-7

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fidel Torres, now federal prisoner # 47740-079, seeks leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal of the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

 

* 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

October 30, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41445 Document: 00513253985 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2015
No. 14-41445

2

motion to reduce his sentence based on retroactive Amendment 782 to U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1. By moving to proceed IFP, Torres is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. 

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

As Torres notes, the district court found him eligible for the reduction

but declined to exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence, determining that 

relief was unwarranted based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. 

United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). Torres contends that the court abused 

its discretion in denying a reduction based solely on petty disciplinary reports 

during his nine years of incarceration for nonviolent marihuana offenses.

The record reflects that in deciding not to exercise its discretion, the 

court considered Torres’s motion as a whole, the probation officer’s addendum, 

and the § 3553(a) factors. Torres does not claim that the court abused its 

discretion by basing its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous 

assessment of the facts. Thus, he cannot show an abuse of discretion. See 

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

Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009).

Torres 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,

the motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. Additionally, because the appeal is 

frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-41445 Document: 00513253985 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2015