IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40003

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAIME STEVENS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CR-458-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Without a plea agreement, Jaime Stevens, federal prisoner # 94455-079, 

pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 1.706 

kilograms of cocaine and possessing with intent to distribute 1.706 kilograms 

of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Stevens was 

found to be a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, but the district court 

varied from the applicable guidelines range of 188 to 235 months for reasons 

 

* 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

September 28, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40003 Document: 00514174751 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2017
No. 17-40003

2

related to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and sentenced Stevens to 115 months 

of imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently.

Stevens moves in this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) 

from the denial of his motions seeking a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. 

The district court determined that Stevens was ineligible for a reduction 

because he qualified as a career offender, even though the court had varied 

below the applicable career offender guidelines range. The court also certified 

that Stevens’s appeal was not taken in good faith.

By moving to proceed IFP, Stevens challenges the district court’s 

certification that his appeal was not taken in 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).

Stevens was eligible for a sentence reduction only to the extent it would 

be consistent with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, p.s. See § 3582(c)(2); Dillon v. United 

States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010). Although Amendment 782 is listed in 

§ 1B1.10(d), it does not have the effect of lowering Stevens’s “applicable 

guidelines range.” § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); see also § 1B1.10, p.s., comment. (n.1(A)). 

The “applicable guideline range” is “the guideline range that corresponds to 

the offense level and criminal history category determined pursuant to 

[U.S.S.G.] § 1B1.1(a), which is determined before consideration of any 

departure provision in the Guidelines Manual or any variance.” § 1B1.10, p.s., 

comment. (n.1(A)). The guidelines range applicable to Stevens was the career 

offender range under § 4B1.1. Amendment 782 lowered only the U.S.S.G. 

§ 2D1.1 drug quantity guideline range. The Supreme Court’s decision in

 Case: 17-40003 Document: 00514174751 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2017
No. 17-40003

3

Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011), is irrelevant to Stevens’s case. 

Accordingly, the district court did not err in determining that Stevens was not 

eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Quintanilla, 868 F.3d 

315, 319-22 (5th Cir. 2017).

Accordingly, Stevens’s appeal does not involve any “legal points arguable 

on their merits.” Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. His motion to proceed IFP is 

DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 

202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-40003 Document: 00514174751 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/28/2017