USA v. Roy Jone


UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [13-50423 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: PRO , Judge: JWE , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 11/26/2013; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Roy Lee Jones [7384948-2] [13-50423]

Download PDF
Case: 13-50423 Document: 00512430801 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-50423 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 5, 2013 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. ROY LEE JONES, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CR-191-1 Before OWEN, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Roy Lee Jones, federal prisoner # 39810-180, seeks our authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence for possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base. According to Jones, the district court abused its discretion when it determined that he was not entitled to a reduction 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-50423 Document: 00512430801 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/05/2013 No. 13-50423 under Amendment 750 of the Sentencing Guidelines. He challenges the district court’s denial of IFP status and certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). The guidelines range applicable to Jones’s case was not based on the quantity of cocaine base involved in the offense; it was based on Jones’s career offender status. “The crack cocaine guideline amendments do not apply to prisoners sentenced as career offenders.” United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones’s motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See id.; United States v. v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Jones demonstrates no error in the district court’s certification decision and fails to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Therefore, his motion 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?