IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50904

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STEVEN RICHARD HARRIS, also known as Steve Harris,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:11-CR-97

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steven Richard Harris, federal prisoner # 42930-177, pleaded guilty to 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and 

conspiracy to commit money laundering, and he was sentenced to 240 months 

of imprisonment on the drug count and 72 months on the money laundering 

count, to run concurrently. Harris filed a motion for a reduction of his 

sentence, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), in light of Sentencing Guidelines 

 

* 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

April 7, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50904 Document: 00513456010 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2016
No. 15-50904

2

Amendment 782, which reduced penalties for certain drug trafficking offenses. 

The motion was granted, and Harris’s sentence of imprisonment was reduced 

to 220 months. Harris filed a second motion for a further reduction of his 

sentence asking that his sentence be reduced from 220 months to 188 months, 

the low end of the amended guideline range. The district court denied the 

second motion, noting that it had granted his previous motion and stating that 

no further reduction was warranted. Harris appealed from the second order

denying a further reduction.

The district court certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith, 

and it denied Harris’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on 

appeal. Harris has challenged the district court’s certification decision by 

applying to this court for leave to proceed IFP on appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor, 

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry “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).

Harris argues that the district court erred in its analysis of the reduction 

of his term of imprisonment under § 3582(c) and that the district court did not 

properly consider all the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when imposing 

the new sentence. He contends that the district court should have applied the 

analysis required in Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011), by 

considering his post-sentencing rehabilitation evidence and other evidence 

concerning his conduct since his last sentencing.

The district court’s order ruling on a sentence reduction under 

§ 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Evans, 

587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court’s first order stated that 

the court had considered Harris’s motion, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (p.s.), and the 

sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a). In its order denying Harris’s motion 

 Case: 15-50904 Document: 00513456010 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2016
No. 15-50904

3

for a further reduction, the district court stated that it had reviewed the motion 

and the file in his case and concluded that no further reduction was warranted.

A sentencing court is not required to explain its application of the 

statutory sentencing factors in ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion. United States 

v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 718 (5th Cir. 2011) (discussing Evans, 587 F.3d at 

673). “The court, which was under no obligation to reduce [Harris’s] sentence 

at all, was under no obligation to reduce it even further within the recalculated 

range.” Evans, 587 F.3d at 673 (footnotes omitted). Further, “a defendant 

cannot successfully challenge a district court for failing to provide reasons . . . 

for granting his [§ 3582(c)(2)] motion but not providing a satisfactorily low 

enough sentence within the recalculated range.” Id. at 674 (footnote omitted).

As for Harris’s argument that the district court should have applied the 

analysis in Pepper, the holding in Pepper applied to the consideration of postsentencing rehabilitation when resentencing after a defendant’s sentence had 

been vacated on appeal, not on a motion to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c). 

See 562 U.S. at 490.

Harris has failed to show that his appeal involves a nonfrivolous issue. 

See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. His motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is 

DENIED. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2; see also Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24.

 Case: 15-50904 Document: 00513456010 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/07/2016