From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Polk

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jun 14, 2010
381 F. App'x 385 (5th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-60434 Summary Calendar.

June 14, 2010.

Thomas W. Dawson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James Louis Polk, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, USDC No. 3:94-CR-95-1.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.


James Louis Polk, federal prisoner # 10155-042, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence. By moving to proceed IFP, Polk is challenging the district court's certification decision that his appeal was not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

We review the district court's denial of a Section 3582(c)(2) motion de novo. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009). Because Polk's guidelines imprisonment range was not derived from the quantity of crack cocaine involved in the offense but rather from his career offender status, the district court was correct in concluding that a sentencing reduction was not permitted. See § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 790-9.1 (5th Cir. 2009).

Polk has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) His motion for IFP is denied and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED


Summaries of

U.S. v. Polk

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jun 14, 2010
381 F. App'x 385 (5th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Polk

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Louis POLK…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jun 14, 2010

Citations

381 F. App'x 385 (5th Cir. 2010)