United States v. Donald Paxson , 554 F. App'x 301 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-50012 Document: 00512530060 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 13-50012 FILED
Summary Calendar February 12, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITES STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DONALD PAXSON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:07-CR-72-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donald Paxson, federal prisoner # 82915-180, pleaded guilty to possession
of child pornography and receipt of child pornography, and the district court
imposed concurrent sentences of 70 months in prison, to be followed by 35 years
of supervised release. He now moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his petition seeking
sentencing credit for the 33 months he spent in home confinement during pre-
trial release.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-50012 Document: 00512530060 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2014
No. 13-50012
Paxson’s IFP motion is a challenge to 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). This court’s inquiry into whether the appeal is taken in 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).
Paxson argues that the district court erred (1) in construing his motion,
in part, as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and (2) in failing to use its powers to
provide redress for the unconstitutional restraint on his liberty during his home
confinement. Paxson has not adequately addressed the district court’s reasons
for dismissing his petition. By failing to identify any error in the district court’s
analysis, Paxson has abandoned any challenge he might have raised regarding
the district court’s decision. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th
Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, Paxson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard, 707 F.2d at 219-20. The IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal
is DISMISSED. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Paxson’s repetitive attempts to obtain relief under different provisions
demonstrate a disregard for the strain on judicial resources caused by his
motions and appeals. He is hereby warned that any future frivolous or repetitive
filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will invite
sanctions, including monetary penalties and limits on his access to federal court.
We hereby instruct Paxson to review all pending matters to ensure that they are
not frivolous or repetitive.
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED.
2