USA v. Juan Araujo-Contrera

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [16-50026 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EBC , Judge: ECP , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 05/11/2017; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Juan Carlos Araujo-Contreras [8143773-2]; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Juan Carlos Araujo-Contreras [8143716-2] [16-50026]

Case: 16-50026

Document: 00513960437

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/20/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-50026
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
April 20, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.

JUAN CARLOS ARAUJO-CONTRERAS, also known as Juan Carlos Araujo,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:07-CR-4-3
Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Juan Carlos Araujo-Contreras, federal prisoner # 36097-177, seeks leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of
his motion to reduce his 210-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Araujo-Contreras is
challenging the district court’s certification that this appeal from the denial of

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-50026

Document: 00513960437

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/20/2017

No. 16-50026
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v.
Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5).
Relying on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), Araujo-Contreras contends that there
is an unwarranted disparity between his sentence and that of his brother, who
was convicted in the same case and received a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. AraujoContreras, however, does not allege any facts suggesting that there is an
unwarranted sentencing disparity among similarly situated defendants. He
provides no details of any similarities between his and his brother’s offense
conduct, criminal records, other history, or characteristics. His conclusory
assertion that his brother is similarly situated fails to show that an
unwarranted disparity exists. The fact that a co-defendant received a sentence
reduction does not alone show that the denial of Araujo-Contreras’s
§ 3582(c)(2) motion created an unwarranted sentencing disparity. See United
States v. Guillermo Balleza, 613 F.3d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 2010).
Because Araujo-Contreras has not demonstrated that his “appeal
involves legal points arguable on their merits,” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), the
motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as
frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The motion
for appointment of counsel is also DENIED.

2