USA v. Lamont William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [12-30219 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: JES , Judge: CES , Judge: ECP Mandate pull date is 08/31/2012; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Lamont Williams [7044431-2] [12-30219]

Case: 12-30219

Document: 00511952748

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/10/2012

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 12-30219
Summary Calendar

August 10, 2012
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LAMONT WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
No. 2:06-CR-234-7

Before SMITH, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

Lamont Williams, federal prisoner # 29903-034, moves to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) in this appeal from the denial of his motion for relief from an
*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-30219

Document: 00511952748

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/10/2012

No. 12-30219
allegedly void judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4).
The district court denied the request to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that
the appeal was frivolous. Williams’s IFP motion in this court is a challenge to
that certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1992).
This court reviews de novo a ruling on a request for relief under Rule
60(b)(4). Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998). As he did in district court, Williams argues that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the United States had failed to establish standing to pursue the
criminal complaint against him. Because Williams has not shown that he will
present any nonfrivolous issue on appeal, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is
DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at
202 n.24; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Our dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.
1996).

Williams is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under

§ 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed
while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

2