USA v. Hodges

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [08-51125 Dismissed as frivolous] Judge: WED , Judge: JES , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 11/10/2010; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Terrence Ian Hodges [6201546-2] [08-51125]

USA v. Hodges

Doc. 0

Case: 08-51125

Document: 00511268691

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/20/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 08-51125 S u m m a r y Calendar October 20, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t iff - Appellee v. T E R R E N C E IAN HODGES, D e fe n d a n t - Appellant

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas U S D C No. 6:98-CR-74-2

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* T e r r e n c e Ian Hodges, federal prisoner # 40242-080, was found guilty by a ju r y of one count of conspiracy to possess crack cocaine with intent to distribute, o n e count of possession of marijuana, and aiding and abetting the possession of m a r iju a n a . The district court sentenced him to serve 324 months of

im p r is o n m e n t and a ten-year term of supervised release. He now moves for le a v e to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court's denial of his 18

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 08-51125

Document: 00511268691 Page: 2 No. 08-51125

Date Filed: 10/20/2010

U .S .C . § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on recent amendments t o the Sentencing Guidelines for crack cocaine. By moving to proceed IFP, Hodges is challenging the district court's d e c is io n that his appeal was not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 201-02 (5th Cir. 1997). Hodges fails to brief, and h a s thus waived, any challenge he may have had to the district court's d e t e r m in a t io n that the recent, retroactively applicable amendments to the S e n te n c in g Guidelines for offenses involving crack cocaine had no effect on H o d g e s ' sentencing range. United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 346 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 9 ). Rather, Hodges argues that the principles announced in United States v . Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), apply to Section 3582(c) motions. This argument la c k s merit. Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2692 (2010); United States v . Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 671-72 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2 0 1 0 ) ; United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238-39 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 1 3 0 S. Ct. 517 (2009). Hodges has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. 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