
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cornelius Edward ALEXANDER, Jr., also known as Shorty, also known as Cornelius Alexander, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50726
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 10, 2013.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Cornelius Edward Alexander, Jr., Coleman, FL, pro se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Cornelius Edward Alexander, Jr., seeks our authorization to proceed in forma pau-peris (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence for possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Alexander questions the district court’s denial of IFP status and certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Alexander contends that the district court abused its discretion when it did not reduce his sentence pursuant to retroactive provisions of Amendment 750 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § lB1.10(c) (2011); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). The district court understood that Alexander was eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2), but it determined that his sentence as it stood was appropriate in light of the applicable sentencing factors and therefore declined to reduce it. Our review reveals no arguable merit to the contention that it was an abuse of discretion to deny Alexander the relief he requested. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717-18 (5th Cir.2011); United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir.1995). Consequently, we may dismiss this frivolous appeal sua sponte. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983).

Alexander’s IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     