Case: 21-10099 Document: 00516107591 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 24, 2021
No. 21-10099
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Joshua William Jackson,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:16-CR-196-1
Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Joshua William Jackson, federal prisoner # 54191-177, seeks to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his motion for
a compassionate release reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A).
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-10099 Document: 00516107591 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2021
No. 21-10099
We construe Jackson’s IFP motion as a challenge to the district
court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3); Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry
into the good faith of the appeal “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) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Jackson fails to show an arguable abuse of discretion in the denial of
compassionate release. See id.; see also United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d
691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). In denying Jackson’s motion, the district court
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, specifically citing Jackson’s
criminal history, the nature of his offense conduct, his original below-
guidelines sentence, and the need to protect the public. Jackson argues that
the district court should have accounted for a purported error in its
application of the Sentencing Guidelines at the time he was sentenced and
for his post-sentencing rehabilitation. Although he may disagree with how
the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors, Jackson has not shown that
the district court’s decision was based on an error of law or a clearly
erroneous assessment of the evidence. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94.
Accordingly, we DISMISS Jackson’s appeal as frivolous and DENY
the motion to proceed IFP on appeal. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th
Cir. R. 42.2.
2