### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50232

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
GUADALUPE ALVARADO GALINDO , Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:02

- CR

- 43

- 1

Before SMITH, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Guadalupe Alvarado Galindo, federal prisoner # 27066

- 180, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his petition for a writ of audita querela. He also moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) , but a COA is not required to appeal the denial of a writ of audit a querela. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Accordingly, we deny his motion for a COA as unnecessary.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 5, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50232 Document: 00515404806 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2020No. 19

- 50232

2 By moving for leave to proceed IFP on appeal, Galindo is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See
Bau gh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into his 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). Galindo first argues that the statutory enhancement of his sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C. § 851 has become improper in light of Descamps v. United States , 570 U.S. 254 (2013), and Mathis v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) . Because he may seek redress of this claim in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a writ of audita querela, if it still exists in criminal cases, would not be available for the claim

. See United States v.
Miller , 599 F.3d 484, 488 (5th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, Galindo’s inability to meet the requirements for filing a second or successive § 2255 motion would
not render the § 2255 remedy unavailable for purposes of audita querela

. See
Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000). The remaining claims raised by Galindo also fall outside the scope of relief a writ of audita querela could provide. Whereas a udita querela “ can only be available where there is a legal objection to a judgment which has arisen

s ubsequent to that judgment ,” Miller , 599 F.3d at 488, Galindo’s claims that the district court miscalculated his criminal history points and failed to engage in the colloquy required under § 851(b) allege errors that arose before his criminal judgment was entered. Additionally, Galindo’s arguments that different prosecutorial policies would be in effect if he were sentenced today , in light of memoranda by former Attorney General Eric Holder , do es not allege that his criminal judgment has become infirm lega lly. See id. Case: 19-50232 Document: 00515404806 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2020No. 19

- 50232

3 Galindo has failed to show an error in the district court’s certification decision and has not established that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202; Howard , 707 F.2d at 220. H is motion for leave to pro ceed IFP is DENIED, his motion for a COA is DENIED as

unnecessary, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR

. R

. 42.2; Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24. Case: 19-50232 Document: 00515404806 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2020