
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ignacio Luna GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-50152 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 10/19/2016
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Ignacio Luna Garcia, Pro Se
    Before JOLLY, WIENER, and SO,UTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ignacio .Luna Garcia, federal prisoner # 53034-280, seeks leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking modification of his sentence‘for possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and illegal reentry based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. By moving to proceed IFP, Garcia is challenging the district court’s certification, decision that his appeal was not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

In this court, Garcia argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a reduction of sentence. He contends that he is not a threat to public safety and asserts that a reduction of sentence should have been granted. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009).

In its order denying relief, the district court recognized that Garcia was eligible for a sentence reduction. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct 2683,177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). However, the district court denied Garcia’s motion as a matter of discretion, referring specifically to the 18 U.S.C. § 3653(a) sentencing factors and Garcia’s extensive criminal history. Garcia has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by denying him a sentence reduction. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).

This appeal does not present a nonfrivo-lous issue. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Garcia’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R, 47.5.4.
     