IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20495

Summary Calendar

WARDELL MOORE,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

RICKTHALER,DIRECTOR,TEXASDEPARTMENT OF CRIMINALJUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CV-2309

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wardell Moore, Texas prisoner # 1391932, was convicted of aggravated

assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to serve 75 years in prison. 

Now, he moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)

in his appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion for sanctions under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2). Moore’s IFP motion constitutes a

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 27, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-20495 Document: 00512157362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2013
No. 12-20495

challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in

good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

The district court’s denial of a Rule 11 motion is reviewed under the abuse

of discretion standard, which is met only when no sensible person would agree

with the district court’s decision. Friends for Am. Free Enterprise Ass’n v.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, 284 F.3d 575, 577-78 (5th Cir. 2002). Moore has not met

this standard.

Consistent with his position in the district court and in several prior suits,

Moore maintains that, in a motion for summary judgment filed with respect to

Moore’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, the Respondent falsely asserted

that Moore was represented by counsel in his criminal proceedings. Moore

asserts that he complied with the safe harbor provision of Rule 11(c)(2) by

sending the respondent a letter giving notice of his intent to seek sanctions. 

Moore’s actions do not suffice to satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 11(c)(2). 

See In re Pratt, 524 F.3d 580, 585-88 (5th Cir. 2008); Eliott v. Tilton, 64 F.3d 213,

216 (5th Cir. 1995). Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion

by concluding that Moore had not complied with the notice requirement of Rule

11(c)(2) and denying his Rule 11(c)(2) motion. 

Because Moore has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous appellate

claim, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. See Howard v. King, 707

F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The instant appeal is without arguable merit

and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; Howard, 707

F.2d at 219-20; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

This court previously noted that “Moore has filed numerous meritless

pleadings insisting that he was denied counsel,” and he was informed “that

filings additional pleadings raising similar claims may result in the imposition

of sanctions.” Moore v. Thaler, No. 11-20640 at 2 (5th Cir. April 18, 2012). He

failed to heed this warning. Consequently, Moore is ORDERED to pay a $100

sanction to the Clerk of this Court. He is BARRED from filing any pleading in

2

 Case: 12-20495 Document: 00512157362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2013
No. 12-20495

this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction challenging his

convictions and sentence until the sanction is paid in full, unless he first obtains

leave of the court in which he seeks to file the pleading. Finally, Moore is

CAUTIONED that lodging future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive

filings in the district court or in this court will subject him to additional and

progressively more severe sanctions.

3

 Case: 12-20495 Document: 00512157362 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/27/2013