Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:02-CR-110 RM.
April 16, 2008
OPINION AND ORDER
On March 10, 2008, the court denied Nehemiah Reed's motion for a sentence reduction based on the Sentencing Commission's decision to apply Amendments 706 and 711 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines retroactively, finding that the length of Mr. Reed's sentence resulted from his being a career offender, rather than from the quantity of cocaine base involved, so his sentencing range remains the same after the amendments. Mr. Reed has filed an appeal of that order and is before the court asking that he be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis on his appeal. Mr. Reed represents that he is indigent and unable to pay the filing fee.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) provides that a financially indigent person may be permitted to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis unless the court "certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith." In other words, the court must determine "that a reasonable person could suppose that the appeal has some merit." Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000). No reasonable person could find that Mr. Reed's appeal has any merit because he is not eligible for a sentence reduction under the amended crack cocaine guidelines. Accordingly, the court concludes that his appeal is not taken in good faith, and his request for pauper status must be denied.
For the reasons stated above, the court DENIES Mr. Reed's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis [docket # 156 and # 157].
SO ORDERED.