USA v. Jerry Dedrick

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [10-50306 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: PEH , Judge: JES , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 10/07/2010; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Jerry Lewis Dedrick [6539489-2] [10-50306]

USA v. Jerry Dedrick

Doc. 0

Case: 10-50306

Document: 00511235313

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/16/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-50306 S u m m a r y Calendar September 16, 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 v. J E R R Y LEWIS DEDRICK, 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 U S D C No. 7:02-CR-113-2

B e fo r e HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* J e r r y Lewis Dedrick, federal prisoner # 27140-180, moves for leave to p r o c e e d in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his "motion for ju d g m e n t nunc pro tunc adjustments for role in offense," challenging the s e n te n c e imposed following his conviction for aiding and abetting possession w it h intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base. The district court d e n ie d Dedrick's IFP motion because he failed to present a good faith, n o n fr iv o lo u s , arguable issue for appeal. By moving for leave to proceed IFP on
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-50306

Document: 00511235313 Page: 2 No. 10-50306

Date Filed: 09/16/2010

a p p e a l, Dedrick is challenging the district court's determination. See Baugh v. T a y lo r , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5). A review of this court's files shows that this appeal represents the latest in more than two dozen appeals involving Dedrick's sentence and confinement. Pertinent to this appeal, Dedrick was originally sentenced under the career c r im in a l provisions of §4B1.1 of the then-applicable United States Sentencing G u id e lin e s . He challenged that application on direct appeal and lost. United S ta te s v. Dedrick, No. 03-50397 (5th Cir. Jan. 23, 2004). Since that appeal, he h a s filed various challenges to this sentence, all unsuccessful before both the d is t r ic t court and this court. In 2008, he again moved to reduce his sentence; t h a t motion was denied, and the appeal of that decision remains pending under N o . 08-50673. T h e motion that is the subject of the current appeal is, at best, yet another a t t e m p t to reargue his sentence. At worst, it is a successive habeas over which t h e district court would have no authority because Dedrick never received p e r m is s io n from this court to file it. In any event, Dedrick has not demonstrated a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. This appeal is "from the denial of a meaningless, u n a u t h o r iz e d motion." See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1 9 9 4 ). Dedrick has failed to show that his appeal involves "legal points arguable o n their merits (and therefore not frivolous)." Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5 t h Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the motion for le a v e to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED as fr iv o lo u s . See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Dedrick is W A R N E D that filing further frivolous appeals will subject him to sanctions. See F ED. R. APP. P. 38; Clark v. Green, 814 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1987).

2