USA v. Shanita Mo


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-10861 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: JES , Judge: JLW , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 03/19/2015 [14-10861]

Download PDF
Case: 14-10861 Document: 00512950329 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10861 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 26, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SHANITA LASHUN MOSS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10-CR-34 Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Shanita Lashun Moss, federal prisoner # 41225177, pleaded guilty in 2010 to two counts of unauthorized use of an access device and was sentenced to 115 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and restitution in the amount of $322,364.90. She appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for modification or reduction of her sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-10861 Document: 00512950329 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2015 No. 14-10861 Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, “even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them.” Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993)); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8). Moss has failed to make any argument challenging the district court’s ruling denying her § 3582(c)(2) motion. When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that issue. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Moss has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of her § 3582(c)(2) motion. See id. Because Moss’s appeal presents no legal points arguable on their merits, the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Moss has unsuccessfully sought relief in three 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions and now in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. She is WARNED that future frivolous filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on her ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS, SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?