USA v. Glenn Bonano, Jr., No. 17-60481 (5th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-60481 Document: 00514452780 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-60481 Summary Calendar FILED May 1, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GLENN MICHAEL BONANO, JR., Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:12-CR-12-1 Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Glenn Michael Bonano, Jr., federal prisoner # 16588-043, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s denial of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). “To proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, a litigant must be economically eligible, and his appeal must not be frivolous.” Jackson v. Dallas Police Dept., 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), (e)(2). Bonano has not established 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-60481 Document: 00514452780 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/01/2018 No. 17-60481 his financial eligibility to proceed IFP. See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Nor has he shown that the appeal raises a nonfrivolous challenge to the district court’s determination that he was not eligible for a sentence reduction in light of the guidelines error in his favor at sentencing. As a result of that error, the applicable range under the amended guideline is greater than the range applied at sentencing. The IFP motion is thus DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See § 3582(c)(2); Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 201-02 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 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.