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UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED.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]
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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?