
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Anthony REYES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-10501 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 12/21/2016
    Leigha Amy Simonton, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Juan Anthony Reyes, Jr., Pro Se
    Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juan Anthony Reyes, Jr., federal prisoner # 31910-177, seeks our authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence for distribution of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 2. He challenges the district court’s denial of IFP status and the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). An appeal is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470, 472 (5th Cir. 2001).

Contrary to Reyes’s argument, a district court is not required to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672-73 (5th Cir. 2009). Also, contrary to what Reyes contends, this court may assume that the district court duly considered the § 3553(a) factors, as the court “was presented with argument concerning the § 3553(a) factors.” Id. at 673. And because the record demonstrates that the district court duly considered Reyes’s motion as a whole and explicitly or implicitly considered the § 3553(a) factors, “the district court did not abuse its discretion.” United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).

Reyes fails to present a nonfrivolous argument for overturning the district court’s certification decision, which is intertwined with the merits of the case. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 302. Accordingly, his IFP motion is DENIED, and we sua sponte DISMISS his appeal as frivolous. See Taylor, 257 F.3d at 472; Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     