SEC v. Milles ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50736 Document: 00516983760 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50736
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ November 29, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Securities and Exchange Commission, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
William J. Milles, Jr.,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CV-714
______________________________
Before Elrod, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
William J. Milles, Jr., seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on
appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). He contends that the district
court erred in denying his motion for joinder and in granting summary
judgment in favor of the SEC as another individual was responsible for
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50736 Document: 00516983760 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2023
No. 22-50736
supplying him with fraudulent or misleading information that he then
provided to investors.
Milles’s motion to proceed IFP and his appellate brief are construed
as 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); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). To proceed IFP, Milles must
demonstrate both financial eligibility and a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See
Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). An appeal presents
nonfrivolous issues when it raises legal points that are arguable on the merits.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). If the appeal is frivolous,
we may dismiss it sua sponte. 5th Cir. R. 42.2; see Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
& n.24.
Milles’s conclusory arguments do not present a nonfrivolous issue for
appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Consequently, he has not made the
requisite showing for leave to proceed IFP on appeal. See Carson, 689 F.2d
at 586. Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is
DISMISSED as frivolous. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); 5th Cir.
R. 42.2.
2