United States v. Skinner ( 2023 )

Case: 23-60364 Document: 00516947061 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________
FILED
No. 23-60364 October 27, 2023
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jesse M. Skinner,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:02-CR-93-1
______________________________
Before Jones, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Jesse M. Skinner, federal prisoner # 35713-019, moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from the district court’s order
denying his pro se postconviction motion to dismiss certain counts in the
indictment for his 2004 convictions of various controlled substance,
_____________________
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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: 23-60364 Document: 00516947061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2023
No. 23-60364
firearms, and assault offenses. This motion is a challenge to the district
court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v.
Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Although Skinner did not specify the legal authority under which he
sought dismissal of his counts of conviction, the district court seemingly
construed his motion as seeking relief under Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 12. Skinner’s postjudgment motion should have been construed
as seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which “is the proper vehicle for
challenging the validity of a conviction and sentence” in the collateral
context. Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680, 681 (5th Cir. 1999). However,
because Skinner had not received this court’s authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, the district court would not have had jurisdiction
to consider that motion. See id. at 682. Because there was no other statutory
authority permitting Skinner’s motion, it was, in essence, “a meaningless,
unauthorized motion” which the district court was without jurisdiction to
entertain. United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994).
As Skinner has not shown that the appeal raises a nonfrivolous issue,
his appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th
Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Skinner’s motion for IFP is DENIED, and the
appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th
Cir. R. 42.2. In light of Skinner’s litigation history, he is WARNED that
future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will result in the
imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and
restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to
this court’s jurisdiction. He should review any pending appeals and actions
and move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive.
2