Case: 24-40545 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-40545 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ February 28, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Oscar Cantu-Ramirez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:08-CR-107-1 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Haynes, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Oscar Cantu-Ramirez, federal prisoner # 15325-078, seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) from the denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In his § 3582(c)(2) motion, Cantu-Ramirez argued that he was entitled to a sentence reduction based on Amendment 821, because he was a zero-point offender and otherwise _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-40545 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2025

No. 24-40545

satisfied the criteria set forth in U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a) (2023). By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Cantu-Ramirez is challenging the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Although the first page of the district court’s order does not provide specific reasons for the denial of Cantu-Ramirez’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, in a second sealed page the district court explained that Cantu-Ramirez was not eligible for a reduction under § 4C1.1 because he received an aggravating role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. See § 4C1.1(a)(10) (2023); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). Thus, Cantu-Ramirez’s assertion that the district court did not provide sufficient reasons for denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion is unavailing, as is his assertion that the district court provided “retroactive justification” for the denial in its order denying IFP status. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 2009).

Additionally, the district court’s reasons for denying Cantu-Ramirez’s § 3582(c)(2) motion indicate that it implicitly interpreted § 4C1.1(a)(10) (2023), as disjunctive without reference to proposed Amendments 830 and to the Sentencing Guidelines. Lastly, Cantu-Ramirez’s argument that the district court misapplied § 4C1.1(a)(10) (2023) in denying his motion because he was never found to have engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise is foreclosed. See United States v. Morales, 122 F.4th 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2024).

Cantu-Ramirez has failed to show a nonfrivolous issue regarding whether the district court abused its discretion by denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Cantu-Ramirez’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.