United States v. Rigoberto Mata, Jr. ( 2019 )

Case: 18-11068 Document: 00514956150 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 18-11068 May 14, 2019
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RIGOBERTO MATA, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:08-CR-267-15
Before JONES, ELROD, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Rigoberto Mata, Jr., federal prisoner # 35080-079, moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal of the denial of his third motion for
a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) pursuant to Amendment 782
to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. By challenging the district court’s
denial of authorization to proceed IFP on appeal, Mata is challenging the
district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith and is
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 18-11068 Document: 00514956150 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2019
No. 18-11068
frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry
into good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable
on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
We recently clarified in United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 713-14
(5th Cir. 2018), that a § 3582(c)(2) motion is a step in a criminal proceeding
and res judicata principles do not apply within such a single legal action. The
district court, therefore, abused its discretion in denying Mata’s third § 3582
motion as barred by res judicata, and Mata has raised a nonfrivolous issue for
appeal. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011);
Howard, 707 F.2d at 220.
For this reason, Mata’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is GRANTED.
See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. The district court’s judgment dismissing his
§ 3582(c) motion is VACATED. We DISPENSE with further briefing and
REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings. We express no
opinion on whether the district court should exercise its discretion to grant a
reduction in Mata’s sentence after considering the appropriate factors and the
new issue Mata raises in his third § 3582(c) motion based on Hughes v. United
States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018), and United States v. Torres, 856 F.3d 1095 (5th
Cir. 2017).
2