Case: 15-30839 Document: 00513549013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-30839 FILED
Summary Calendar June 15, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
NATHANIEL SINGLETON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:07-CR-20102-1
Before GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Nathaniel Singleton, federal prisoner # 34438-018, who was convicted of
being a felon in possession of a firearm, possession with intent to distribute
cocaine, and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, moves for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He seeks to challenge the
denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion in which he sought a sentence
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-30839 Document: 00513549013 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2016
No. 15-30839
reduction pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Amendments 782 and 788, which
retroactively lowered certain offense levels under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c).
Singleton’s guidelines range was not based on the quantity of cocaine
pursuant to § 2D1.1(c); his guidelines range was based on U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1.
Accordingly, he was not sentenced based on a sentencing range that was
subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission, and the amendments do
not apply to him. See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 791 & n.8 (5th
Cir. 2009). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying him a
sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); United
States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Finally, because there is no
constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, United
States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995), Singleton cannot claim
ineffective assistance of counsel, see Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752
(1991).
Because the appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous,
Singleton’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his
appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202
n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
2