Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should * not be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthinFifth Circuit Rule 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 31183 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. D EM ET RI U S TER RE LL W O O D S D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 01- C R - 313- 1 B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * D e m e t r i us Te r r e l lW o o ds , r e pr e s e nt e d by cou ns e la ppo i nt e d un de rt he C r im in a l J u s tic e A c t (C J A), 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 0 0 6 A , m o v e s fo rle a v e to p r o c e e d in fo r m a p a u p e r is (IF P ) o n a p p e a l fo llo w in gthe distr ic t c o u r t’s ce r tific a tio n th a t h is ap pea lw as not t ak en i n good fai t h . W oods ap pea l s f rom t h e den i alof

a m ot i on fora se n te n ce re d u ctio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ). W oo d s w a s sen ten ced to 26 2 m on th s of im p ri son m en t for p oss ess i on w i th i n t en tt o di st ribu t e crack cocai n e. H e w as sen t en ced u n der t h e careerof fen der United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 23, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 31183

2 g u i d e l i n e , U. S . S . G. § 4 B 1 . 1 , a n d n o t t h e c r a c k c o c a i n e g u i d e l i n e , § 2 D1 . 1 . H e soug h t rel i ef pu rsuan t t o recent am en dm en t s t o t h e S en t en cin gG u i del i n es g o v e r n in gcr a c k co c a in e s e n te n c e s . S ee U . S. S. G . app. C , am ends. 706, 713. W oo ds c ont ends t hatUn i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker, 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), Ki m brough v. Un i t ed S t ate s, 128 S. C t . 5 58 ( 20 07 ) , a nd G a ll v . Un ite dS ta te s , 128 S. C t. 586 ( 2007) , appl y t o § 3582(c ) ( 2) pr oc ee di ngs and t hatt hi s c our tm ay r e vi e w t he de ni alo f

s uc h m o t i o ns f

o ra bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n. W e m ayde ny an I FP m o t i o n i n ac r i m i nalappe albr o ugh tb y a de fe nda nt represented by ap poi n t ed coun selw h en tha ta pp eali s f rivol ou s and t h e di st ri ct c o u r t h a s ce r tifie d th a t itis n o t t a k e n in g o o dfa ith . Un itedS ta tes v. B o u tw ell, 896 F. 2d 884, 889–90 ( 5t h C i r . 1990) ( si ngl e-j udge or der) . W e c onduct a de nov o rev i ew to de term i ne w het heran appell anthas i den ti fi ed a n on frivo l ou s ap p ell a te is s u e . Id . at 890. Th e i n vest i gati on i n t o t h e m ovan t ’ s obj ect ive good fai t h does n ot req u i re th a t pro b a b l e su cces s on ap p ea lbe sh ow n , bu t i s l im i ted to d e te r m in in gw h e th e rt h e m o v a n t r a is e s a r g u a b le le g a l p o in ts . Ho w ar d v . Ki ng , 7 0 7 F. 2d 215, 220 ( 5t h C i r . 1983) . A sho w i ng t hat suc h ar guabl e l ega lpo i n ts e x is t is s u ffic ie n t fo rth is co u r t t o g r a n t a n IF P m o tio n . Id . Th e r ec entc r ac k c oc ai ne am endm ent s di d notaf fec tthe gui del i ne r ange o f im p r is o n m e n t fo rd e fe n d a n ts w h o w e r e s e n te n c e da s ca r e e ro ffe n d e r s . S ee U . S . S . G . app . C , am en d s. 7 0 6 , 713 ; § 3582 (c) ( 2) ( st ati n g t h at a t erm of i m pri so nm entm ay be r educ ed i f i ti s “bas ed upon a se nt enc i ng r ange t hathas su b seq u en tl y b ee n l ow ere d byan am en d m en t t o th e G u i d eli n es”); § 1 B 1 . 1 0 cm t. n. 1(A) ( s t at i ng t hata n a m e ndm e ntdo e s no tl o w e rt he a ppl i c ab l e s e nt e nc i ng ran ge be c aus e o f

t he o pe r at i o n o f

a no t he rg ui de l i ne o rs t at ut e ) . The c r ack coca i n e a m en d m en ts did n ot p rov i d e th e d i s trict cou rt w i th the au th ority to lo w e rW o o d s ’ s s e n te n c e . Boo ke r, Ki m bro ugh , a nd G a llare Su prem e C ou rtcases a n d n ot retroa ctive am en d m en ts t o th e G u i d eli n es; th eyh a ve n o a p p l i ca b i l i ty to c a s e s th a t a r e n o t ot h e r w is e b a s e do n re tr o a c tiv e a m e n d m e n ts . S ee§ 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ).N o. 08- 31183

3 T o th e e x te n t t h a t W o o d s m ig h t b e a b le to cla im th a t t h e F e d e r a l P u b lic D e fe nde r( FPD ) o pe r at e d un de ra c o nf l i c to f i nt e r e s tv i o l a t i ng anya r gua bl e r i ght to co u n s e l b e c a u s e h e w a s o n th e p a n e l th a t r e c o m m e n d e dth e d e n ia l o f h is § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) m o tio n , h e ca n n o t d e m o n s tr a te th a t a n ys u c h co n flic t a d v e r s e ly a ffe c te d th e F P D ’s p e r fo r m a n c e . S e eC uy le rv . S u lliv a n , 446 U . S. 335, 350 ( 198 0) . B ecau se W oods w as sen t en ced as a career off en der an d w as not enti t l ed t o § 3 58 2(c ) ( 2) r e l i e f as a m at t e r o f l aw, t he FPD ’ s pr e s e nc e o n t he pa ne lha d no ef fecton h i s perf

orm an ce. W oods’ s argu m en t s are w i t h ou targu able m eri tbecau se he w as sentenced as a c ar ee rof

fend er. H i s I FP m ot i on i s deni ed and hi s appeali s di sm i ss ed as fr iv o lo u s . S ee B o u tw ell, 896 F. 2d at889–90 . I F P DE NI ED . A P P EA L DI S M I S S ED .