Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10861/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10861-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shanita Lashun Moss
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10861

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SHANITA LASHUN MOSS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-34

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Shanita Lashun Moss, federal prisoner # 41225-

177, pleaded guilty in 2010 to two counts of unauthorized use of an access 

device and was sentenced to 115 months of imprisonment, three years of 

supervised release, and restitution in the amount of $322,364.90. She appeals 

the district court’s denial of her motion for modification or reduction of her 

sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 26, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-10861 Document: 00512950329 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2015
No. 14-10861

Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, “even pro se 

litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them.” Mapes v. Bishop, 

541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 

(5th Cir. 1993)); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8). Moss has failed to make any 

argument challenging the district court’s ruling denying her § 3582(c)(2)

motion. When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s 

analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that issue. 

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987). Moss has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of 

her § 3582(c)(2) motion. See id. Because Moss’s appeal presents no legal points 

arguable on their merits, the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Moss has unsuccessfully sought relief in three 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions 

and now in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. She is WARNED that future frivolous filings 

will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary 

sanctions, and restrictions on her ability to file pleadings in this court and any 

court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS, SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2

Case: 14-10861 Document: 00512950329 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2015