United States v. Anthony Keller
697 F. App'x 281
5th Cir.2017Background
- Keller, a federal prisoner, moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal after the district court denied his motions for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782.
- The district court found Keller eligible for a guideline reduction but exercised its discretion to deny a sentence reduction after reevaluating the § 3553(a) factors.
- Keller argued the district court improperly relied on the same § 3553(a) factors considered at original sentencing instead of focusing on changed post‑sentencing factors (rehabilitation, low recidivism risk, no need for further correctional treatment).
- The district court considered the motions, the presentence report, guidelines calculations, and the record, and concluded the original sentence remained appropriate.
- The district court certified the appeal was not taken in good faith and denied IFP; Keller appealed that certification to the Fifth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying a § 3582(c)(2) reduction | Keller: court relied on § 3553(a) factors already considered at sentencing instead of changed post‑sentencing factors (rehabilitation, low recidivism) | District court: properly reconsidered all § 3553(a) factors, weighed post‑sentencing conduct but found factors against reduction outweighed those for it | Denial was within district court's discretion; no abuse; appeal frivolous |
| Whether the appeal was taken in good faith for IFP purposes | Keller: challenges the certification, contends appeal raises nonfrivolous legal points | Government: certification stands because no nonfrivolous issue presented | Appeal not brought in good faith; IFP denied; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (IFP certification and good‑faith standard)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (good‑faith inquiry limited to whether appeal is frivolous)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S. 2010) (district court’s discretion in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933 (5th Cir. 2011) (review of district court’s § 3582(c)(2) decision)
- United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2011) (standards for reconsideration of § 3553(a) factors in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for § 3582(c)(2) denials)
- United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir. 1995) (appellate review limits on reweighing § 3553(a) factors)