USA v. Robert Salter, No. 15-50815 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 15-50815 Document: 00513369835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-50815 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 4, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROBERT BARRY SALTER, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:09-CR-191 Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert Barry Salter, federal prisoner # 53001-280, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-50815 Document: 00513369835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2016 No. 15-50815 the Sentencing Commission. Amendment 782 did not reduce Salter’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). Moreover, he has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in determining that the seriousness of Salter’s offense and the need to protect the public did not warrant a sentence below the varied sentence that he received. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). Salter’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

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.