Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10897/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10897-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron Garcia Morales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 ___________________ 

No. 15-10897

Summary Calendar 

 ___________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee 

v. 

AARON GARCIA MORALES, 

 Defendant - Appellant 

 _______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:93-CR-84-12

 _______________________ 

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Aaron Garcia Morales, federal prisoner # 24655-077, 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 for reduction of sentence based on Amendments 

750 and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. By moving to proceed IFP, Morales 

is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in 

 *Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent excerpt under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 13, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10897 Document: 00513907999 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2017
No. 15-10897

2

good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry 

into a litigant’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 citation

omitted). 

The Supreme Court has prescribed a two-step inquiry for a district court

that is considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 

826 (2010). The court must first determine whether a prisoner is eligible for a 

reduction as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id. If he is eligible, then the district 

court must “consider any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine 

whether, in its discretion,” any reduction is warranted under the particular 

facts of the case. Id. at 827. 

The district court properly concluded that Morales was ineligible for a

reduction because he was sentenced under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 as a career

offender. See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 790-91 (5th Cir. 2009);

§ 3582(c)(2). As Morales was not sentenced under a Guideline lowered by

Amendment 750 or 782, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it

denied his motion. See Anderson, 591 F.3d at 791.

Thus, Morales has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue

on appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his IFP motion and all

outstanding motions are DENIED. Additionally, because this appeal is

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

 

 Case: 15-10897 Document: 00513907999 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2017