USA v. Fields, No. 22-10843 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-10843 Document: 00516593328 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-10843 Summary Calendar FILED December 30, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Ryan Keith Fields, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:01-CR-127-1 Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Ryan Keith Fields, federal prisoner # 27957-177, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his motion for reduction of sentence, filed pursuant to section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. The district court denied the motion on remand after this court * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-10843 Document: 00516593328 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2022 No. 22-10843 vacated the district court’s first order because the district court had erroneously found that Fields was ineligible for the reduction. Fields argues that the district court acted vindictively and violated his right to due process and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it failed to exercise its discretion to reduce his sentence. He contends that the district court should have first considered his guidelines range, which he erroneously contends would be reduced under the First Step Act, and conducted a thorough, renewed 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis before denying relief. The record as a whole indicates that the district court considered Fields’s motion and had a reasoned basis for its discretionary decision. See Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404 (2022); United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2020); Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1966-67 (2018). Accordingly, Fields’s arguments lack arguable merit, and thus he fails to raise a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal as frivolous and DENY the motion to proceed IFP on appeal. 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.
