Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Bently NEELY, Sr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-27
Citations: 672 F. App'x 445
Docket Number: No. 16-50472 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Bently NEELY, Sr., Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 445–446

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Bently NEELY, Sr., Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-50472 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed December 27, 2016
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ellen A. Lockwood, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
James Bently Neely, Sr., Pro Se
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Bently Neely, Sr., federal prisoner # 24634-079, has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce a defendant's sentence if he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that subsequently was lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Amendment 782 did not reduce Neely's guidelines sentencing range, and so he was ineligible for a sentencing reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2) & comment. (n.1(A)); United States v. Bowman, 632 F.3d 906, 910-11 (5th Cir. 2011).
Neely's appeal does not present a non-frivolous issue and has not been brought in good faith. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). The motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.