USA v. Crosby

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [08-50593 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: WED , Judge: JES , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 11/17/2010 for Appellant Joseph Daniel Crosby Jr.; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Joseph Daniel Crosby, Jr. [6165219-2]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Joseph Daniel Crosby, Jr. [6149448-2] [08-50593]

USA v. Crosby

Case: 08-50593 Document: 00511276410 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 08-50593 S u m m a r y Calendar October 27, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e , versu s J O S E P H DANIEL CROSBY, JR., D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t .

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas N o . 6:04-CR-25-ALL

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:*

J o s e p h Crosby, Jr., federal prisoner # 36119-180, pleaded guilty of possess io n with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine within 1,000
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 08-50593 Document: 00511276410 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2010 No. 08-50593 fe e t of a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 860. He moves for leave to p r o c e e d in forma pauperis ("IFP") in this appeal from an order granting his pro s e 28 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction based on the retroactive a m e n d m e n t to the crack cocaine guideline. By moving for IFP, Crosby is challenging the district court's certification t h a t his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 2 0 2 (5th Cir. 1997). Crosby, however, asserts only that he is entitled to proceed I F P on appeal because he is a pauper; he makes no argument that his appeal inv o lv e s any nonfrivolous issue. Because of his failure to brief them, he has aband o n e d his district-court claims and any challenge to the district court's certific a t io n . See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1983); Brinkmann v . Dallas Cnty. Sheriff Abner, 813 F.3d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). T h e appeal lacks any issue of arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F .2 d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. It is therefore DISM I S S E D as frivolous. Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The mot io n to proceed IFP is DENIED. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24. Crosby's mot io n for appointment of counsel is likewise DENIED.

2