Case: 15-50735 Document: 00513665683 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 15-50735
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar September 6, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
SANTIAGO ANGUIANO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:04-CR-371-1
Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Santiago Anguiano, federal prisoner # 43457-180, 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 for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782
to the Sentencing Guidelines. By moving to proceed IFP, Anguiano is
challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in
good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-50735 Document: 00513665683 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2016
No. 15-50735
into a litigant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal
points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).
The Supreme Court has prescribed a two-step inquiry for a district court
that is considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817,
826 (2010). The court must first determine whether a prisoner is eligible for a
reduction as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id. If he is eligible, then the district
court must “consider any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine
whether, in its discretion,” any reduction is warranted under the particular
facts of the case. Id. at 827.
The district court properly concluded that Anguiano was ineligible for a
reduction because he was sentenced under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 as a career
offender. See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 790-91 (5th Cir. 2009);
§ 3582(c)(2). Anguiano’s arguments that he was not sentenced as a career
offender are meritless. To the extent he raises arguments challenging alleged
defects in his original sentencing, these are not cognizable in the instant
proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831. As Anguiano was not sentenced under
a Guideline lowered by Amendment 782, the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it denied his motion. See Anderson, 591 F.3d at 791.
Thus, Anguiano has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue
on appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his IFP motion is
DENIED. Additionally, because this appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED.
5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
2