IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ELI TREVINO MUNGIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:09-CV-97

USDC No. 5:95-CR-17-1

Before SMITH, HIGGINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Eli Trevino Mungia, federal prisoner # 26371-077, filed a Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion in his criminal proceedings, in which he 

argued that there was no basis for federal jurisdiction over the crimes he 

committed in Lubbock, Texas, and that the federal prosecutor’s misconduct in 

bringing an indictment against him constituted a fraud upon the court. 

Mungia stands convicted of conspiracy to interfere with federally protected 

 

* 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

October 18, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10004 Document: 00514688628 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2018
No. 18-10004

2

activities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; interference with federally protected 

activities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B); using a firearm during and in 

relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and possession 

of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), 5871. The 

district court denied his Rule 60(b) motion and denied him a certificate of 

appealability (COA). Mungia moves for a COA and for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. 

To the extent that Mungia challenges the district court’s denial of his 

Rule 60(b) motion in the context of his criminal proceedings, he is appealing 

from a “meaningless, unauthorized” motion that the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to consider. United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 

1994). Because an appeal on this ground lacks arguable merit, it is 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Accordingly, Mungia’s IFP motion is 

DENIED, see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983), and a COA 

is DENIED as unnecessary, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).

To the extent that the district court’s denial of a COA implicates 

Mungia’s prior civil postconviction proceedings and Mungia seeks a COA to 

appeal the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion in that context, he 

has not made the requisite showing for a COA. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005); 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Accordingly, a COA is DENIED. 

Mungia was previously warned that frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise 

abusive filings would invite the imposition of sanctions. See In re Mungia, 

No. 16-10307 (5th Cir. June 21, 2016) (unpublished). Mungia is again 

WARNED that the continued filing of frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise 

abusive attempts to challenge his convictions and sentences in this court or 

any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will invite the imposition of 

 Case: 18-10004 Document: 00514688628 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2018
No. 18-10004

3

sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and possibly denial of 

access to the judicial system.

 Case: 18-10004 Document: 00514688628 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/18/2018