IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50744

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CLIFTON DEWARREN RIVERS, also known as Clifton Rivers,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:05-CR-52

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clifton Dewarren Rivers, federal prisoner # 36491-180, 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 to reduce his sentence based on retroactive 

Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. By moving to proceed IFP, Rivers is 

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

good faith because it is frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th 

 

* 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

March 28, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50744 Document: 00513440915 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2016
No. 15-50744

2

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) (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(a). 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. We review the decision whether to 

reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States 

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

The district court implicitly found Rivers eligible for the reduction but 

determined that a reduction was unwarranted due to the danger posed to the 

public by his early release. Rivers contends that this was an abuse of 

discretion, citing his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts, including his 

completion of various prison programs and the absence of any incidents of 

violence since his incarceration.

The record reflects that the district court considered Rivers’s motion as 

a whole, gave specific reasons for its denial, and referenced the relevant 

§ 3553(a) factors. Rivers thus cannot show an abuse of discretion on the 

district court’s part. See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717; United States v. Evans, 

587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 

1010 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Rivers has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on 

appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his IFP motion is DENIED. 

 Case: 15-50744 Document: 00513440915 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2016
No. 15-50744

3

Additionally, because this appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R.

42.2.

 Case: 15-50744 Document: 00513440915 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/28/2016