Case: 15-50583 Document: 00513333924 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-50583 FILED
Summary Calendar January 7, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
KEITH O. COBB,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:93-CR-96-2
Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Keith O. Cobb, federal prisoner # 60806-080, seeks 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 to reduce his sentence based on Amendments 782 and 788
to the Sentencing Guidelines. By moving to proceed IFP, Cobb is challenging
the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith
because it is frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-50583 Document: 00513333924 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2016
No. 15-50583
First, Cobb challenges several factual statements made by the district
court in giving reasons for denying the instant § 3582(c)(2) motion. The factual
statements made by the district court are grounded in facts recited in the
presentence report. Cobb’s challenges to the facts used to determine his
original sentence are unavailing insofar as a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not the
appropriate vehicle to raise issues related to the original sentencing. See
United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v.
Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995).
Second, Cobb contends the district court's denial of relief indicates that
it was blind to the amendments’ purpose of reducing the overpopulation of the
federal prison system. However, in denying relief, the district court referenced
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and its order reflects that it gave due
consideration to Cobb’s motion as a whole. Accordingly, the district court did
not abuse its discretion when it refused to grant Cobb a reduction in his
sentence. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011);
Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1010.
Cobb has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his IFP
motion is DENIED. Additionally, because this appeal is frivolous, it is
DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
2