IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60977

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ISIAH AMBO, also known as Isiah Ambos,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:00-CR-38-1

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Isiah Ambo, federal prisoner # 06113-043, moves to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s grant of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

motion. The district court reduced Ambo’s sentence to 235 months of

imprisonment based on the retroactive amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. The

district court denied Ambo permission to proceed IFP based on evidence that he

had sufficient funds to pay the appellate filing fee.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 21, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 08-60977 Document: 00511515905 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2011
No. 08-60977

To proceed IFP, a litigant must be economically eligible, and his appeal

must raise a nonfrivolous issue. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.

1982). Ambo has provided insufficient evidence that he is financially eligible to

proceed IFP by virtue of his failure to provide this court with a certified copy of

his inmate account balance during the last six months. See FED. R. APP. P.

24(a)(1)(A); Form 4 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure Appendix of Forms.

Nevertheless, the frivolous nature of his appeal obviates the need to

determine his financial eligibility. Ambo argues that his sentence was reduced

based on an incorrectly calculated presentence report (PSR), contending that the

PSR erroneously held him responsible for 772.5 grams of cocaine base. He

further argues that the district court should have considered a reduction in

sentence below the amended guidelines range and, additionally, assigns error

to the district court’s failure to hold a new sentencing hearing or state reasons

for the reduction.

The district court’s ruling on Ambo’s § 3582(c)(2) motion is reviewed for an

abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009),

cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2010). Section 3582(c)(2) sentencing reduction

proceedings do not constitute full resentencings; consequently, the district court

is not required to give reasons for the sentence or hold a new sentencing hearing.

Id. at 672, 674; see United States v. Dillon, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691-94 (2010).

Moreover, “[a] § 3582(c)(2) motion is not the appropriate vehicle for raising

[issues related to the original sentencing].” Evans, 587 F.3d at 674 (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted); Dillon, 130 S. Ct. at 2693-94. Thus,

Ambo’s contention that his original drug quantity and corresponding base

offense level was miscalculated at his original sentencing is not cognizable under

§ 3582(c)(2). See Evans, 587 F.3d at 674. Finally, the district court had no

authority to sentence Ambo below the amended guidelines range. United States

v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009).

Accordingly, Ambo has not shown that his proposed appeal raises a nonfrivolous

2

Case: 08-60977 Document: 00511515905 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2011
No. 08-60977

issue. His request for IFP is thus denied, and his appeal is dismissed as

frivolous. See Carson, 689 F.2d at 586; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

3

Case: 08-60977 Document: 00511515905 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2011