eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2022-04

United States v. Palacio ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 21-50164     Document: 00516282109         Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/18/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                           United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 18, 2022
No. 21-50164
Summary Calendar                     Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Mauro Castaneda Palacio,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:03-CR-302-1
Before Jones, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Mauro Castaneda Palacio, former federal prisoner # 39711-180, was
convicted by a jury of attempted enticement of a child. The district court
sentenced him to 120 months of imprisonment and 10 years of supervised
release. The district court later revoked his supervised release and sentenced
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-50164      Document: 00516282109           Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/18/2022
No. 21-50164
him to 24 months of imprisonment and 10 years of supervised release.
Palacio did not appeal the revocation or his revocation sentence. He now
moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the
district court’s denial of his motion for termination or modification of
supervised release pursuant to
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e).
By moving to proceed IFP, Palacio is challenging the district court’s
certification decision that this appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v.
Taylor,
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 & n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into an
appellant’s 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).
Palacio has not adequately articulated a nonfrivolous ground for
challenging the district court’s denial of his motion with respect to
termination of supervised release, see United States v. Jeanes,
    150 F.3d 483
    ,
484 (5th Cir. 1998), or modification of the conditions of supervised release,
see United States v. Hatten,
    167 F.3d 884
    , 886 (5th Cir. 1999); Yohey v. Collins,
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, his motion to proceed
IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED. See Baugh,
    117 F.3d at 
    202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
2