USA v. William Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [16-50876 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EBC, Judge: ECP, Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 02/21/2017; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. William Harris Jones [8282872-2] [16-50876]

Download PDF
Case: 16-50876 Document: 00513854156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-50876 Summary Calendar FILED January 30, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. WILLIAM HARRIS JONES, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:14-CR-90-1 Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * William Harris Jones, federal prisoner # 28772-298, who was convicted of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He seeks to appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion “to reverse ‘void’ federal judgment to correct a ‘manifest injustice,’” which the district court construed as a petition for a writ of coram nobis. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-50876 Document: 00513854156 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2017 No. 16-50876 Jones remains in custody. Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that the writ of coram nobis is not available to him. See United States v. Hatten, 167 F.3d 884, 887 n.6 (5th Cir. 1999). Because the appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous, Jones’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 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?