USA v. Ladd

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [09-50029 Dismissed as frivolous ] Judge: CDK , Judge: FPB , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 11/22/2010; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Bobby Benton Ladd [6217113-2]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Bobby Benton Ladd [6217113-3] [09-50029]

USA v. Ladd

Case: 09-50029 Document: 00511280545 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-50029 S u m m a r y Calendar November 1, 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. B O B B Y BENTON LADD, 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. 6:06-CR-107-ALL

B e fo r e KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* B o b b y Benton Ladd, federal prisoner # 56834-180, has appealed the d is t r ic t court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence b a s e d on recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. Ladd moves for p e r m is s io n to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) and he requests appointment of a p p e lla te counsel. The district court has certified that the appeal is not in good fa it h . See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 09-50029 Document: 00511280545 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2010 No. 09-50029 L a d d argues that he has a constitutional right to counsel in seeking § 3582(c)(2) relief; the district court should have held a hearing; and the court a b u s e d its discretion by denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. L a d d had no right to appointment of counsel or to be present at a hearing in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 10101 1 (5th Cir. 1995); FED. R. CRIM. P. 43(b)(4). The denial of Ladd's § 3582 motion w a s not an abuse of discretion, as the district court based its decision on the 18 U .S .C . § 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 2373 8 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009). Ladd has failed to show that he w ill raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5 t h Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his motions for IFP and appointment of counsel are D E N I E D . Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R . 42.2.

2