Case ID: f-appx_694/html/0321-01.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

Charles R. ANDRUS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-20722 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed August 3, 2017
    Charles R. Andrus, Pro Se
    Susan Frances San Miguel, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Postconviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Ap-pellee
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Charles Andrus, Texas prisoner # 1249907, moves to proceed in forma pawperis (“IFP”) to appeal the dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of a motion seeking authorization, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, to withdraw his state pleas of nolo contendere to aggravated robbery and burglary of a habitation. Andrus has moved for leave to file a supplemental brief.

By moving for IFP status in this court, Andrus is challenging the district court’s certification that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s “inquiry 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) (citation omitted).

Andrus has failed to identify any errors in the district court’s analysis. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating that plaintiffs failure to identify any error was' “the same as if he had not appealed that judgment”). Although this court liberally construes pro se filings, even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

Andrus has therefore failed to show that his appeal involves “legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The motion to proceed IFP' is DENIED, The motion to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED.

Andrus’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See id, at 219-20. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cíe. R. 42.2. 
      
       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.