eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2018-05

United States v. Marcus Freeman ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •      Case: 17-10903      Document: 00514489441         Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/29/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 17-10903                            May 29, 2018
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MARCUS LELAND FREEMAN, also known as Big Mark,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:96-CR-68-8
Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Marcus Leland Freeman, federal prisoner # 29129-077, has been
sanctioned twice by this court. In June 2017, Freeman submitted a motion
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), seeking to void the district court’s
2001 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.                 The district court denied
Freeman’s Rule 60(b) motion as barred because Freeman had not complied
with this court’s prior sanction order imposing a $200 monetary sanction.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 17-10903     Document: 00514489441     Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/29/2018
No. 17-10903
After the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, Freeman paid the $200
sanction. Thereafter, he filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his Rule
60(b) motion, which the district court denied. We review such actions for an
abuse of discretion. Gelabert v. Lynaugh,
    894 F.2d 746
    , 747-48 (5th Cir. 1990).
Freeman has filed a brief arguing the merits of his Rule 60(b) motion,
but he has not addressed the district court’s enforcement of the sanction order.
Accordingly, he has abandoned the threshold issue for appeal. See Brinkmann
v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey
v. Collins,
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). As Freeman’s appeal does not
present a legal issue arguable on its merits, it is frivolous. See Howard v. King,
    707 F.2d 215
    , 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.           See 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2.
2