Lauren Reynolds v. Marne Boyle, Warden , 679 F. App'x 372 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 16-20023      Document: 00513905470         Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/09/2017
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 16-20023                               FILED
    Summary Calendar                         March 9, 2017
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    LAUREN E. REYNOLDS,
    Petitioner-Appellant
    v.
    MARNE BOYLE, Warden,
    Respondent-Appellee
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:15-CV-2450
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Lauren Elizabeth Reynolds, federal prisoner # 86893-180, was convicted
    in the Northern District of Texas on her guilty plea to post-felony possession of
    a firearm and was sentenced to a 120-month prison term and a three-year term
    of supervised release. United States v. Reynolds, 427 F. App’x 316, 316 (5th
    Cir. 2011) (affirming the judgment). In 2015, Reynolds instituted the instant
    case in the Southern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge her
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-20023     Document: 00513905470      Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/09/2017
    No. 16-20023
    conviction and sentence. Concluding that Reynolds failed to show any basis
    for a challenge under § 2241, the district court granted summary judgment in
    favor of the Government, dismissing the case with prejudice and finding it
    frivolous. Also, the district court denied leave to proceed IFP on appeal because
    the court deemed the appeal to be in bad faith.
    Now Reynolds seeks our permission to proceed IFP on appeal to question
    the district court’s denial of IFP status and certification that her appeal is not
    in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th Cir. 1997); FED.
    R. APP. P. 24(a)(3). An appeal is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in law
    or fact.” Taylor v. Johnson, 
    257 F.3d 470
    , 472 (5th Cir. 2001).
    Because Reynolds does not show that her appeal presents a nonfrivolous
    issue, see id.; see also Garland v. Roy, 
    615 F.3d 391
    , 394 (5th Cir. 2010); United
    States v. Reyes-Requena, 
    243 F.3d 893
    , 900-06 (5th Cir. 2001), she has failed to
    make the showing required to obtain leave to proceed IFP. Accordingly, her
    IFP motion is DENIED and this appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
    
    Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
    ; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3). Additionally,
    we WARN Reynolds that frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will
    invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary
    sanctions, and restrictions on her ability to file pleadings in this court and any
    court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 
    852 F.2d 806
    ,
    817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-20023 Summary Calendar

Citation Numbers: 679 F. App'x 372

Judges: Jolly, Davis, Southwick

Filed Date: 3/9/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024