Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Clark MARION, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-22
Citations: 79 F. App'x 46
Docket Number: No. 03-60314
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Clark MARION, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 46–46

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Clark MARION, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-60314.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 22, 2003.
Thomas W. Dawson, Assistant US Attorney, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Anthony Clark Marion, #09895-042, Federal Prison Camp, Forrest City, AR, pro se.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Clark Marion, federal prisoner # 09895-042, moves this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion to modify his sentence. He argues that he is entitled to a reduction in sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for his acceptance of responsibility.
Section 3582(c) limits sentence modification only to certain narrow circumstances, none of which are applicable in Marion's case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(l)(A)(on motion of Bureau of Prisons); § 3582(e)(l)(B)(clerical error or, on Government's motion, substantial assistance); § 3582(c)(2)(sentencing range subsequently lowered by Sentencing Commission). Marion's § 3582 motion therefore was unauthorized and without a jurisdictional basis, and, thus, the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain it. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994).
Marion has not demonstrated a nonfrivolous issue for appeal, and, therefore, he cannot proceed IFP. See Fed. R.App. P. 24(a) Because his appeal is without arguable merit, it is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
IFP 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.