Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Guillermo SILVAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-08
Citations: 432 F. App'x 316
Docket Number: No. 11-40363
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Guillermo SILVAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 432
Pages: 316–317

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Guillermo SILVAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-40363
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 8, 2011.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Juan Guillermo Silvas, Memphis, TN, pro se.
Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Guillermo Silvas, federal prisoner # 19188-179, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 154.44 grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and was sentenced to 160 months of imprisonment and 10 years of supervised release. He moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court's denial of his motion to reduce sentence, identified as arising under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Silvas's arguments that he was entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 484 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 and the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity attributable to him are not cognizable under § 3582. See United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir.2000); United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994).
Silvas's motion was an unauthorized motion without a jurisdictional basis. See Early, 27 F.3d at 142. Accordingly, Silvas's motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.