UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Valentin MONJARAS-PICHARDO, Defendant-Appellant, 628 F. App'x 259

PER CURIAM: Valentin Monjaras-Piehardo, federal prisoner #45512-177, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Monjaras-Pichar-do argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion without determining whether he was individually responsible for 270 kilograms of heroin.

He argues that the entire conspiracy was responsible for 270 kilograms of heroin and that he should be sentenced only on the portion for which he was responsible. By moving to proceed IFP, Monjaras-Pichardo is challenging the district court’s certification decision that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a sentence if the defendant is sentenced to a prison term based upon a sentencing range that subsequently is lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Amendment 782 did not reduce Monjar-as-Pichardo’s guidelines sentencing range, and, thus, he was ineligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2) & comment, (n. 1(A)); United States v. Bowman, 632 F.3d 906, 910-11 (5th Cir.2011). Monjaras-Pi-chardo’s arguments challenging the amount of heroin for which he was held responsible at sentencing are without merit.

Motions under § 3582(c)(2) may not be used to challenge the correctness of the sentence as it was originally imposed. United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir.1995). Monjaras-Pichardo fails to demonstrate a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, his 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.