Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11187/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11187-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
David Ray Wallace
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11187

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID RAY WALLACE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CV-3257

USDC No. 3:02-CR-328

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Ray Wallace, federal prisoner # 29587-177, was convicted of 

unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) & 924(e). 

United States v. Wallace, 92 F. App’x 985 (5th Cir. 2004). Wallace was 

classified as an armed career criminal and sentenced to 293 months in prison 

and five years of supervised release.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 8, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11187 Document: 00513335556 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2016
No. 14-11187

2

After filing a number of post-conviction motions, including a 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion, which the district court denied on the merits, Wallace filed a 

motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 

The district court construed this motion as an unauthorized successive § 2255 

motion and transferred the matter to this court. The district court, after 

certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith, denied Wallace’s motion 

for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and declined to issue a certificate of 

appealability (COA).

In this court, Wallace moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) 

on appeal and for a COA to appeal the district court’s order transferring his 

matter to this court in order for Wallace to obtain authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion.

We recently addressed whether a COA is required to appeal a transfer 

order. See United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 

136 S. Ct. 431 (2015). We determined that, while a “transfer order of a habeas 

petition deemed successive is an appealable, collateral order,” it is not a final 

order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Id. Thus, “the appeal 

of such an order does not require a COA.” Fulton, 780 F.3d at 688. Accordingly, 

Wallace’s motion for COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.

Next, we address Wallace’s IFP motion. A person who desires to appeal 

IFP must obtain prior approval if, as in this case, the district court certifies 

that the appeal is not taken in good faith. FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3)(A). By 

moving to proceed IFP on appeal, Wallace is challenging the district court’s 

certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into Wallace’s good faith “is 

limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits 

(and therefore not frivolous).” See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 

 Case: 14-11187 Document: 00513335556 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2016
No. 14-11187

3

1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). If we uphold the 

district court’s certification, Wallace must pay the filing fee or the appeal will 

be dismissed for want of prosecution. Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. However, we 

may dismiss the appeal as frivolous when it is apparent that an appeal would 

be meritless. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24.

To establish that an appeal from the transfer order involves a nonfrivolous issue, Wallace must show that his Rule 60(b) motion is not an 

unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. Fulton, 780 F.3d at 685. A Rule 60(b) 

motion that raises new substantive claims or attacks the district court’s meritsbased resolution of prior § 2255 claims should be construed as a successive 

§ 2255 motion. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530, 532 & n.4 (2005) (28 

U.S.C. § 2254 case); United States v. Hernandes, 708 F.3d 680, 681 (5th Cir. 

2013) (applying Gonzalez to a § 2255 motion).

Our examination of Wallace’s filings, the record, and pertinent authority 

shows no error in connection with the district court’s conclusion that Wallace’s 

Rule 60(b) motion was best construed as an unauthorized successive § 2255 

motion because it challenged the district court’s merits-based resolution of his 

§ 2255 claims. See Gonzales, 545 U.S. at 530, 532 & n.4; Hernandes, 708 F.3d 

at 681. Thus, Wallace has not shown that an appeal of the transfer order 

involves legal points that are arguable on their merits. See Fulton, 780 F.3d 

at 688; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed 

IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 5TH CIR. R.

42.2; Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24.

 Case: 14-11187 Document: 00513335556 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/08/2016