# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 50692 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Eugene Durst Self,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:09

- CR

- 66

- 1

Before **Higginbotham** , **Smith** , and **Oldham** , Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Eugene Durst Self, federal prisoner # 76522

- 080 , moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and for the appointment of counsel for an appeal. The district court denied Self’s motion to proceed IFP, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good f aith. By moving for IFP, Self is

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 26, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50692 Document: 00515758956 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2021No. 20

- 50692

2 challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 199

- 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
In his brief, Self argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for release by not considering relevant facts and evidence and by using a non

- Shepard 1 approved document upon which to base its original revocation decision. He contends that his revocation of supervised release was based on a violation that was vacated by the state court.
Self’s motion for release, filed in his criminal revocation case, essentially asked the district court to reconsider its decision to revoke his supervised release while his appeal was pending. Self filed his motion on August 10, 2020, over eight months aft er the district court revoked his supervised release in December 2019. We affirmed Self’s revocation sentence on August 28, 2020. United States v. Self , 818 F. App’x 381, 382 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court did not have jurisdiction to consider th is

un timely motion for reconsideration

. See United States v. Cook , 670 F.2d 46, 48 (5th Cir. 1982) ; United States v. Miramontez , 995 F.2d 56, 58 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993)

. Self’s motion was unauthorized and without a jurisdictional basis, and

“ he has appealed from t he denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion. ” See United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 141

- 42 (5th Cir. 1994). He has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion . And
he failed to show that his appeal involves “legal p oints arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Therefore, the motion to proceed IFP is **DENIED** , the motion for appointment of counsel

1 Shepard v. United States , 544 U.S. 13 (2005). Case: 20-50692 Document: 00515758956 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2021No. 20

- 50692

3 is **DENIED** , and the appeal is **DISMISSED** as frivolous

. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; **5th C**  **ir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 20-50692 Document: 00515758956 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/26/2021