Carlos Giraldo v. Vance Laughlin


UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [12-60445 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EGJ , Judge: WED , Judge: ECP Mandate pull date is 05/13/2013; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Carlos Alberto Giraldo [7144745-2] [12-60445]

Download PDF
Case: 12-60445 Document: 00512182416 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-60445 Summary Calendar March 21, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk CARLOS ALBERTO GIRALDO, Petitioner-Appellant v. VANCE LAUGHLIN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 5:10-CV-96 Before JOLLY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carlos A. Giraldo, federal prisoner # 59508-079, filed the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition to challenge the determination that he should not receive a one-year reduction to his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). The district court concluded that Giraldo had no right to the disputed reduction, denied the petition, and denied Giraldo’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Now, this court is presented with Giraldo’s IFP motion, and briefing has been completed. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-60445 Document: 00512182416 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2013 No. 12-60445 By moving to proceed IFP, Giraldo is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into an appellant’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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We may dismiss the appeal if it is frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. In an appeal from the denial of habeas relief, this court reviews the district court’s factual findings for clear error and issues of law de novo. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). In his filings with this court, Giraldo argues that the district court misapplied our jurisprudence when analyzing his claims, and he insists that he had a right to the disputed credit. We disagree with both contentions. Any differences between the cases cited by the district court and the instant one are immaterial. Prison officials enjoy “broad discretion to deny sentence reductions” even to inmates who have completed a treatment program. Rublee v. Fleming, 160 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1998). Giraldo has not shown that he had a protected interest in the disputed credit, nor has he shown any other flaw in the district court’s decision. See Richardson v. Joslin, 501 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 2007). This appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, Giraldo’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?