USA v. Quincy Pearson
UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [16-11115 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: JES, Judge: JWE, Judge: JEG. Mandate pull date is 09/27/2017; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Quincy Pearson [8357356-2] [16-11115]
Date Filed: 09/06/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
September 6, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
QUINCY PEARSON, also known as Baby Face, also known as Face,
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:10-CR-206-3
Before Judges SMITH, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Quincy Pearson, federal prisoner # 42272-177, was convicted of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine
base. The district court sentenced him below the guidelines range to 210
months of imprisonment.
On March 10, 2016, the district court granted
Pearson’s motion for an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction and
resentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 188 months.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 09/06/2017
Instead of filing an appeal of the March 10, 2016, order granting relief,
Pearson filed a motion seeking recalculation of his amended sentencing
guidelines range, which the district court denied. After the district court
denied that motion, Pearson filed the instant “motion for modification of prison
term.” The district court denied the motion and also denied Pearson leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), certifying that an appeal of the denial of his
motion would not be taken in good faith.
Now Pearson moves for authorization to proceed IFP in an appeal from
the district court’s denial of his “motion for modification of prison term.” By
moving to proceed IFP, Pearson challenges the district court’s certification that
the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202
(5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Dedrick, 535 F. App’x 334, 335 (5th Cir. 2013)
(applying Baugh in the § 3582(c)(2) context). We must therefore determine
“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 citations omitted).
The district court correctly determined that Pearson’s motion was
meaningless, unauthorized, and without any jurisdictional basis. See United
States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Consequently, this appeal
does not involve “legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not
frivolous).” See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous, and Pearson’s IFP motion is DENIED.
See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
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?