United States v. Felipe Rodriguez ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Case: 19-50414     Document: 00515662885         Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/07/2020
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                          United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    December 7, 2020
    No. 19-50414                      Lyle W. Cayce
    Summary Calendar                         Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Felipe Carmona Rodriguez,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 2:18-CV-58
    USDC No. 2:14-CR-345-1
    Before Clement, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Felipe Carmona Rodriguez, federal prisoner # 34144-380, moves this
    court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of motions
    that he filed in his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     proceedings for IFP authorization in the
    *
    Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
    Case: 19-50414      Document: 00515662885           Page: 2     Date Filed: 12/07/2020
    No. 19-50414
    district court and, relatedly, for the provision of free copies of transcripts and
    other documents from the underlying criminal proceedings. By moving to
    proceed IFP, Rodriguez challenges the district court’s certification that his
    appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th
    Cir. 1997). As we do not have jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order
    denying Rodriguez’s motions to proceed IFP in the district court and for the
    provision of free copies of trial court documents, see Thompson v. Drewry, 
    138 F.3d 984
    , 985-86 (5th Cir. 1998); Askanase v. Livingwell, Inc., 
    981 F.2d 807
    ,
    809-10 (5th Cir. 1993), his appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
    JURISDICTION. His motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED.
    2