
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Leon GONZALEZ-LONGORIA, also known as Alfred Martinez, also known as Juan Vela, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-50750 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed August 3, 2017
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Jose Leon Gonzalez-Longoria, Pro Se
    Before DENNIS, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Leon Gonzalez-Longoria, federal prisoner # 59761-079, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He seeks to challenge the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 8582(c)(2) motion in which he sought a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. We construe Gonzalez-Longoria’s motion to proceed IFP as a challenge to the court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into his 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. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonzalez-Longoria’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). Contrary to Gonzalez-Longoria’s assertion, Amendment 782 did not lower his base offense level because his offense involved the equivalent of 200,000 kilograms of marijuana.

Because the appeal lacks arguable merit and is frivolous, Gonzalez-Longoria’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Because the merits of Gpnzalez-Longoria’s appeal are so intertwined with the certification decision as to constitute one issue, his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     