G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court are Shedrick Spaulding's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis ("IFP") (doc. 178) from the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce sentence (doc. 174), and Marion Fields' motion for free transcripts, apparently for the purpose of preparing a motion for collateral relief. Doc. 179.
"To obtain leave to proceed IFP on appeal, [Spaulding] must show that he is a pauper and that he will present a nonfrivolous
Under § 3582(c)(2), courts may modify a term of imprisonment, after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), "in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission." If, however, the imposed sentence is based on an unaffected sentencing range, "[t]he court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); see United States v. Lamb, 485 F. App'x 380, 381-82 (11th Cir. 2012) ("[A] sentence adjustment under § 3582(c) is not a de novo re-sentencing; a court may apply the § 3553(a) factors only if it first has the authority to grant a reduction and then decides to reduce the sentence.").
Amendment 782, which retroactively reduced most drug quantity base offense levels (and upon which Spaulding rests his § 3582(c)(2) motion), did not lower his sentencing range because the Court sentenced him as career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4131.1, not on the basis of a drug quantity determination. See United States v. Williams, 2015 WL 1607967 at * 2 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2015) ("Since Williams was properly sentenced as a career offender, we find that Amendment 782 does not entitle Williams to a further reduction in his sentence."); PSI ¶ 26.
Fields moves for free copies of his trial and sentencing transcripts, as well as copies of "Habeas Corpus forms 2241 and 2255." Doc. 179. The Court presumes he wants the transcripts to help him prepare to file for post-conviction relief. But Fields has filed no collateral attacks to his conviction or sentence and so "is not entitled to these documents free of charge." United States v. Mitchell, 2008 WL 824226 at * 1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2008); see also Pope v. Adams, 2015 WL 4394286 at * 2 (N.D. Ala. July 16, 2015) ("[A] prisoner's right to obtain `access to the court files of their underlying criminal proceeding,' . . . does not extend `for the purpose of preparing a collateral attack on a conviction.") (quoting Hansen v. United States, 956 F.2d 245) 248 (11th Cir. 1992)) (emphasis in original); id. ("[A] request by a prisoner for access to the court files of his underlying criminal conviction is premature prior to the filing of a collateral attack on that conviction, [and] a prisoner is entitled to access the court files only after he has made a showing that such files are necessary to the resolution of an issue or issues he has presented in a non-frivolous pending collateral proceeding.").
Nevertheless, this Court freely dispenses preprinted, court-issued forms to all corners with no justification required (they are even available on the court's public website), 4 so the Clerk is