Case ID: f-appx_519/html/0263-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Thomas Ray KENNEDY, III, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-31048
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 1, 2013.
    Carol Loupe Michel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Thomas Ray Kennedy, III, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
    
      Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Thomas Ray Kennedy, III, federal prisoner # 95939-012, moves in this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion, in which he sought reconsideration of the denial of his motion to file “interrogatory questions.” By moving to proceed IFP, Kennedy is challenging the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(5).

Kennedy has failed to provide argument that addresses the district court’s reasons for denying his Rule 59(e) motion. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). Where an appellant does not identify error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if he had not appealed at all. Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Because Kennedy has not addressed the basis for the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, he has abandoned any challenge thereto. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir.1999). The appeal is frivolous and is therefore DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Kennedy’s motion to appeal IFP is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.