United States v. Barry Yett
669 F. App'x 273
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Barry Yett, a federal prisoner, pleaded guilty in 1995 to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- At sentencing the district court determined Yett was a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and his original 360-month sentence fell within the guideline range.
- Yett filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking a sentence reduction based on guideline amendments that lowered ranges for cocaine base offenses.
- The district court and this Court previously addressed related motions and remanded; on remand the district court applied the career-offender range (262–327 months) and reduced Yett’s sentence to 324 months.
- Yett again sought a reduction under Amendment 782; the district court denied relief as he remained a career offender and thus ineligible for an Amendment 782-based § 3582(c)(2) reduction.
- Yett moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, challenging the district court’s finding that his appeal was not taken in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yett is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction under Amendment 782 | Yett argues Amendment 782 should lower his guideline range and permit a sentence reduction | Government argues Yett was sentenced as a career offender, so his sentence was not based on a range lowered by Amendment 782 and is ineligible | Court held Yett is ineligible because the career-offender range controlled his sentence |
| Whether the appeal is taken in good faith for IFP purposes | Yett contends the appeal raises nonfrivolous legal points regarding career-offender application | Government contends the appeal is frivolous because controlling precedent forecloses relief | Court held the appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith; IFP denied |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in denying § 3582(c)(2) relief | Yett asserts district court erred by denying the motion | Government asserts no abuse because career-offender status precludes relief | Court found no abuse of discretion |
| Whether prior panel rulings affect eligibility | Yett relies on earlier appellate activity for reconsideration | Government relies on final application of § 4B1.1 and controlling precedents | Court relied on prior rulings and precedent to affirm ineligibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (good-faith/IFP appeal standard)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (frivolous-appeal inquiry limited to whether issues are arguable on the merits)
- United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789 (5th Cir. 2009) (career-offender status bars § 3582(c)(2) reductions when sentence based on § 4B1.1)
- United States v. Burns, 526 F.3d 852 (5th Cir. 2008) (discussing Amendment 706/retroactive reductions for crack cocaine offenses)