USA v. Blackmon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [08-50323 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: JLW , Judge: ECP , Judge: PRO Mandate pull date is 11/15/2010; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Deante Demone Blackmon [6047498-2] [08-50323]

USA v. Blackmon

Case: 08-50323 Document: 00511272665 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 08-50323 S u m m a r y Calendar October 25, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. D E A N T E DEMONE BLACKMON, also known as Dopey, also known as B -M u r d e r , also known as Deon, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas U S D C No. 6:03-CR-53-ALL

B e fo r e WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* D e a n t e Demone Blackmon , federal prisoner # 35542-180, seeks leave to p r o c e e d in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court's denial of his 1 8 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on recent a m e n d m e n t s to the Sentencing Guidelines for crack cocaine offenses. He

p le a d e d guilty to one count of distribution of crack cocaine, and he received an a m e n d e d sentence of 180 months of imprisonment. By moving to proceed IFP,

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 08-50323 Document: 00511272665 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2010 No. 08-50323 B la c k m o n is challenging the district court's certification decision that his appeal w a s not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 1 9 7 , 202 (5th Cir. 1997). T h e district court denied Blackmon's § 3582(c)(2) motion in its exercise of d is c r e t io n . In this court, Blackmon merely asserts that the guideline

a m e n d m e n t is applicable to his sentence, and he requests that this court reduce h is sentence accordingly. He does not challenge the reasons given by the district c o u r t for its denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion, and he has therefore abandoned t h e issue. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 7 4 8 (5th Cir. 1987). B la c k m o n also maintains that trial and appellate counsel should have r a is e d objections and arguments regarding drug quantity based on Apprendi v. N e w Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Blackmon's claim regarding the validity of his o r ig in a l sentence is not properly presented in this § 3582 (c)(2) proceeding. See U n ite d States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995). B la c k m o n has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on a p p e a l. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his I F P motion is DENIED. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2