United States v. Fields ( 2022 )

Case: 22-10843 Document: 00516593328 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10843
Summary Calendar FILED
December 30, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Ryan Keith Fields,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:01-CR-127-1
Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ryan Keith Fields, federal prisoner # 27957-177, moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his motion for
reduction of sentence, filed pursuant to section 404 of the First Step Act of
2018. The district court denied the motion on remand after this court
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10843 Document: 00516593328 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2022
No. 22-10843
vacated the district court’s first order because the district court had
erroneously found that Fields was ineligible for the reduction.
Fields argues that the district court acted vindictively and violated his
right to due process and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it
failed to exercise its discretion to reduce his sentence. He contends that the
district court should have first considered his guidelines range, which he
erroneously contends would be reduced under the First Step Act, and
conducted a thorough, renewed 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis before denying
relief.
The record as a whole indicates that the district court considered
Fields’s motion and had a reasoned basis for its discretionary decision. See
Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404 (2022); United States v.
Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2020); Chavez-Meza v. United States,
138 S. Ct. 1959, 1966-67 (2018). Accordingly, Fields’s arguments lack
arguable merit, and thus he fails to raise a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal as frivolous and DENY the
motion to proceed IFP on appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 &
n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
2