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

No. 15

- 51238 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
RICKY GONZALES , also known as “Gonzo,”

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:11

- CR

- 49

- 3

Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge : * Ricky Gonzales, federal prisoner # 71161

- 280 , moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in light of Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidel ines. The district court denied his IFP motion and certified
that his appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for IFP status , he is challenging the district c ourt’s certification decision. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 October 26, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-51238 Document: 00513735317 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2016No. 15

- 51238

2 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). O ur inquiry into an appellant’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). Gonzales contests the di strict court’s conclusion that he is ineligible for

a sentence reduction because his sentence was based on a stipulated sentence set forth in a plea agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), rather than the applicable guidelines range. He maintains that he was eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2) despite the stipulated sentence and that the district court erred by not considering his eligibility for a reduct ion.
The Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement in this case did not call for Gonzales
to b e sentenced within a pa rticular sentencing range , provide for a specific term of imprisonment that was based upon a s entencing range applicable to the offense , or set fo rth a guidelines range for determining his sentence. See United States v. Benitez , 822 F.3d 807, 811

– 12 (5th Cir. 2016) ( citing Freeman v. United States , 564 U.S. 522, 538

– 40 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). The plea agreement did not refer to a sent encing range or offense level , and there is nothing connecting the stipulated sentence to the drug quantity involved in the offense or the guidelines sentencing range. Th us , Gon zales’s sentence was
not based on the quantity of drugs involved in the offens e or the advisory guidelines range , and he was therefore in eligible for a reduction in sentence
under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 . In other words, the amendment did not have the effect of lowering Gonzales’s applicable guideline range
because his sentence was derived from the plea agreement. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Accordingly , the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Henderson , 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Case: 15-51238 Document: 00513735317 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2016No. 15

- 51238

3 Cir. 2011). Gonzales’ s appeal does not involve “legal points arguable on their merits (a nd therefore not frivolous).” See Howard , 707 F.2d at 220. The motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at n.24; 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2

. Case: 15-51238 Document: 00513735317 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/26/2016