Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jason Wayne CHILDS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-12
Citations: 709 F. App'x 284
Docket Number: No. 17-10430 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jason Wayne CHILDS, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before PRADO, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 709
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jason Wayne CHILDS, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-10430 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed January 12, 2018
Leigha Amy Simonton, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jason Wayne Childs, Pro Se
Before PRADO, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jason Wayne Childs, federal prisoner # 39670-177, 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 801 to the Sentencing Guidelines. By seeking leave to proceed IFP, Childs is challenging the district court's certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Amendment 801 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), p.s. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Supp. to App. C, Amendment 801, pp. 139-46 (2016); § 1B1.10(d), p.s. Accordingly, the district court was not authorized to reduce Childs's sentence pursuant to this amendment, and it did not abuse its discretion in denying Childs's § 3582(c)(2) motion. See § 1B1.10(a)(2)(A), comment. (n.1(A)), p.s.; Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011).
This appeal does not present a nonfrivolous issue, and Childs has not brought it 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, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.'