USA v. James Neely, Sr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [16-50472 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: PEH , Judge: JLD , Judge: CH. Mandate pull date is 01/17/2017; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. James Bently Neely, Sr. [8293950-2] [16-50472]

Case: 16-50472

Document: 00513812585

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/27/2016

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-50472
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
December 27, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
JAMES BENTLY NEELY, SR.,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:05-CR-186-3
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
James Bently Neely, Sr., federal prisoner # 24634-079, has moved for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s
denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Under § 3582(c)(2), a district
court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if he was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment based on a sentencing range that subsequently was lowered by

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-50472

Document: 00513812585

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/27/2016

No. 16-50472
the Sentencing Commission.

Amendment 782 did not reduce Neely’s

guidelines sentencing range, and so he was ineligible for a sentencing
reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2) & comment. (n.1(A)); United States v.
Bowman, 632 F.3d 906, 910-11 (5th Cir. 2011).
Neely’s appeal does not present a nonfrivolous issue and has not been
brought in good faith. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
The motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED
as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5TH
CIR. R. 42.2.

2