USA v. Aaron Morales, No. 15-10897 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-10897 Document: 00513907999 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 15-10897 Summary Calendar ___________________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 13, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. AARON GARCIA MORALES, Defendant - Appellant _______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:93-CR-84-12 _______________________ Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Aaron Garcia Morales, federal prisoner # 24655-077, seeks 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 reduction of sentence based on Amendments 750 and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. By moving to proceed IFP, Morales is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in *Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent excerpt under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 15-10897 Document: 00513907999 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2017 No. 15-10897 good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 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).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Supreme Court has prescribed a two-step inquiry for a district court that is considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). The court must first determine whether a prisoner is eligible for a reduction as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id. If he is eligible, then the district court must “consider any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion,” any reduction is warranted under the particular facts of the case. Id. at 827. The district court properly concluded that Morales was ineligible for a reduction because he was sentenced under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 as a career offender. See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 790-91 (5th Cir. 2009); § 3582(c)(2). As Morales was not sentenced under a Guideline lowered by Amendment 750 or 782, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his motion. See Anderson, 591 F.3d at 791. Thus, Morales has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his IFP motion and all outstanding motions are DENIED. Additionally, because this appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
