USA v. Alfonso Hinajosa

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [16-51314 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: PEH, Judge: EHJ, Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 08/30/2017; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Alfonso Hinajosa [8388000-2] [16-51314]

Case: 16-51314

Document: 00514109706

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/09/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-51314
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
August 9, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.

ALFONSO HINAJOSA, also known as Alfonso Hinojosa, III, Alonso Honojosa,
also known as Total-Out-Kast,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:13-CR-365-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Alfonso Hinajosa, federal prisoner # 16411-380, moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He seeks to challenge the denial of
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion in which he sought a sentence reduction
pursuant to Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. We construe Hinajosa’s
motion to proceed IFP as a challenge to the court’s certification that his appeal

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-51314

Document: 00514109706

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/09/2017

No. 16-51314
was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.
1997).

Our inquiry into his 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 review the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). Amendment 782, made
retroactively applicable by Amendment 788, lowered the base offense levels in
§ 2D1.1(c) by two levels and has the effect of lowering Hinajosa’s total offense
level to 25. With a total offense level of 25 and a Criminal History Category of
V, Hinajosa faced an amended guidelines range of 100-125 months in prison.
The district court sentenced Hinajosa to 80 months in prison, below the
minimum of the amended guidelines range, based on the inadequacy of
Hinajosa’s criminal history category. The district court therefore could not
further reduce Hinajosa’s term of imprisonment because Hinajosa had not
received a downward departure pursuant to a government motion to reflect his
substantial assistance to authorities.

See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), (B),

comment. (n.1(A)); United States v. Leatch, 858 F.3d 974, 976 (5th Cir. 2017).
The district court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying Hinajosa’s
§ 3582(c)(2) motion. See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717. Because the appeal lacks
arguable merit and is therefore frivolous, Hinajosa’s motion for leave to
proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Because the
merits of Hinajosa’s appeal are so intertwined with the certification decision
as to constitute one issue, his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh,
117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2