United States v. Williams , 115 F. App'x 207 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 15, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30078
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AARON BRUCE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 93-CR-10012-1
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Aaron Bruce Williams, federal prisoner # 08392-035, seeks
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his appeal of the
district court’s order denying his motion for leave to file a
motion for habeas relief based on newly discovered evidence,
pursuant to Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 207 (2003). He
challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal is
not taken in good faith by arguing that the Anti-Terrorism and
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-30078
-2-
Effective Death Penalty Act does not apply to his proposed
motion. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
This court’s inquiry into Williams’ good faith “is limited
to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their
merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d
215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). This court may determine the merits of a litigant’s
appeal “where the merits are so intertwined with the
certification decision as to constitute the same issue[.]”
Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202.
In his motion before the district court, Williams sought
leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district
court was without authority to grant such a motion.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255, 2244(b)(3)(A). Thus, the district court
did not err in denying his motion. See United States v. Early,
27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994).
Williams “has appealed from the denial of a meaningless,
unauthorized motion.” Id. His appeal lacks arguable merit and
is therefore frivolous. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. The
district court’s certification decision was not in error.
Accordingly, Williams’ IFP motion is DENIED and the appeal is
DISMISSED as frivolous. Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Williams is cautioned that any future frivolous pleadings
filed by him in this court or in any court subject to the
jurisdiction of this court will subject him to sanctions. To
No. 04-30078
-3-
avoid sanctions, Williams should review any pending matters to
ensure that they are not frivolous.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING
ISSUED.