Case ID: f-appx_519/html/0323-01.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

Sostenes PEREZ-MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-40221
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 16, 2013.
    Sostenes Perez-Morales, Kenedy, TX, pro se.
    Charles A. Palmer, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Ap-pellee.
    
      Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Sostenes Perez-Morales (Perez) seeks our authorization to proceed in forma pau-peris (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. By his IFP motion in this court, Perez questions the district court’s denial of IFP status and certification that his appeal was not in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Perez contends that the district court abused its discretion when it determined that he could not use Rule 60(b) to sidestep the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) in connection with his notice of appeal of the district court’s judgment dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. There is no arguable merit to the contention that it was an abuse of discretion to deny Perez relief under Rule 60(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213-15, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007); Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d 491, 492 (5th Cir.2002). Consequently, we may dismiss this frivolous appeal sua sponte. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Perez’s IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.