Dalila Sanchez, federal inmate # 01843-379, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. By moving to proceed IFP, she is challenging the district court’s determination that she was not entitled to appeal IFP. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).

*302 To proceed IFP, Sanchez’s appeal must involve ‘“legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous),’ ” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). Sanchez does not challenge the basis for the district court’s determination that she was not entitled to proceed IFP on appeal because she was not eligible for a' sentence reduction insofar as her guideline range was unchanged by Amendment 782. Thus, she has abandoned any challenge to that determination. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993), Moreover, her arguments that she should have been charged with simple possession rather than conspiracy and should have received a lower sentence based on her role in the offense are not properly before the court in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a re-sentencing; rather it permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission).

Accordingly, this appeal does not present a nonfrivolous issue and has not been brought in good faith, See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220 (5th Cir. 1983). The 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.