United States v. Jerry Dedrick ( 2013 )

Case: 13-50101 Document: 00512300354 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 9, 2013
No. 13-50101
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JERRY LEWIS DEDRICK,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:02-CR-113-2
Before JOLLY, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jerry Lewis Dedrick, federal prisoner # 27140-180, moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the denial of his motion for
reconsideration of the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence
reduction. He argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under the Fair
Sentencing Act, that the district court erred in relying solely on Amendments
750 and 759 of the Sentencing Guidelines, and that he was wrongly classified as
a career criminal under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-50101 Document: 00512300354 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2013
No. 13-50101
The district court did not err in determining that Dedrick’s appeal would
not be in good faith as he has not identified a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. His
guidelines range was not derived from the quantity of cocaine base involved in
the offense, but rather from his career offender status. “The crack cocaine
guideline amendments do not apply to prisoners sentenced as career offenders.”
United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the
district court did not err in denying Dedrick’s motion for reconsideration of the
denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. See id.
Dedrick has shown no error in the district court’s certification decision and
fails to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Baugh v.
Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220
(5th Cir. 1983). Therefore, his motion to proceed IFP on appeal is denied, and
his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2.
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
2