USA v. James Nichol
UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [15-41649 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EHJ, Judge: JES, Judge: JLD. Mandate pull date is 11/02/2016; denying motion for sanctions filed by Appellant Mr. James Douglas Nichols [8237254-2]; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. James Douglas Nichols [8091619-2] [15-41649]
Date Filed: 10/12/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
October 12, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JAMES DOUGLAS NICHOLS,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:09-CR-222-2
Before JONES, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
James Douglas Nichols, federal prisoner # 16570-078, moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his motion for a
correction of a clerical error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. The
district court denied his IFP motion and certified that his appeal was not taken
in good faith. By moving for IFP status, he is challenging the district court’s
certification decision. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 10/12/2016
Our inquiry into an appellant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal
involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).”
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
According to Nichols, the district court failed to attach a copy of the
ruling on his objections to the copy of the presentence report (PSR) used by the
Procedure 32(i)(3)(C). The record before the court shows that the statement of
reasons, reflecting the change in the base offense level and the reason for it, is
attached to the PSR. Nichols has presented nothing to show any error in the
documents related to his conviction. Accordingly, the district court did not err
by denying the Rule 36 motion. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 36; United States v.
Mackay, 757 F.3d 195, 200 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Buendia-Rangel,
553 F.3d 378, 379 (5th Cir. 2008).
The instant appeal does not involve “legal points arguable on their
merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. The motion
for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. The motion for sanctions is also DENIED.
Nichols’s appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at n.24; 5TH
CIR. R. 42.2
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?