Summary
The Fifth Circuit denied IFP status and dismissed as frivolous Neal's appeal from the denial of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Because Neal's sentence was based on his career offender status under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not the drug-quantity tables, Amendment 782 did not lower his guidelines range. Hughes v. United States was inapplicable because Neal's plea agreement was under Rule 11(c)(1)(A), not (c)(1)(C).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in certifying that Neal's appeal from the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion was not taken in good faith.
- Whether Neal is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 and Hughes.
Holdings
- Neal's sentence was based on his career offender guideline under § 4B1.1, not the drug quantity tables under § 2D1.1, so Amendment 782 does not apply. Hughes does not apply because Neal's plea agreement was under Rule 11(c)(1)(A) and not (C).
Key quotations
“Our inquiry into a litigant’s good faith 'is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).'” (at 2)
“Neal's sentence is based upon his status as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and not the drug-quantity tables under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.” (at 2)
“A 'challenge to the applicability of the career offender Guideline constitutes a challenge to the appropriateness of the original sentence,' which is not cognizable under § 3582(c)(2).” (at 3)
Factual background
Neal pleaded guilty to three counts of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. He later moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the drug quantity tables under § 2D1.1, and the Supreme Court's decision in Hughes v. United States. The district court denied the motion.
Procedural history
Neal pleaded guilty to three counts of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He was convicted and sentenced as a career offender. He moved for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 and Hughes v. United States. The district court denied the motion. Neal appeals that denial and moves to proceed IFP on appeal. The district court certified that the appeal is not taken in good faith.