IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10196

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

ROGER HARRY OLSON, II,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CV-1530

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roger Harry Olson, II, federal prisoner # 49151-177, filed a notice of 

appeal from the final judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as timebarred and from the order transferring his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 

59(e) motion to this court as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. He now 

moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district 

 

* 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 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10196 Document: 00515267112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2020
No. 19-10196

2

court’s final judgment and the transfer order. The district court denied Olson’s 

IFP motion.

In his brief, Olson argues only the merits of his claim for equitable 

tolling. Although pro se filings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972), an appellant’s failure to identify any error in the district 

court’s legal analysis is “the same as if he had not appealed that judgment.” 

Coleman v. Lincoln Parish Det. Ctr., 858 F.3d 307, 309 n.9 (quoting Brinkmann 

v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)). Because 

Olson has not identified any error in the district court’s transfer order, we 

“deem that challenge to have been abandoned.” Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 

420, 426 n.24 (5th Cir. 2011).

Olson’s notice of appeal from the final judgment was filed after the 60-

day prescriptive period for filing it expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); FED.

R. APP. P. 4(A)(1)(B)(i). Because Olson does not challenge the district court’s 

determination that his Rule 59(e) motion constituted an unauthorized 

successive § 2255 motion, the motion did not toll the time for filing an appeal 

of the final judgment, and his notice of appeal from the final judgment is 

untimely. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005). Accordingly, we 

lack jurisdiction as to the order denying § 2255 relief. See Hamer v. 

Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13, 16-17 (2017); United States 

v. Young, 966 F.2d 164, 165 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. McDaniels, 907 

F.3d 366, 369 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2705 (2019); § 2107(b).

Because Olson abandoned the only issue that he could raise on appeal, 

he has failed to show that this appeal involves legal points arguable on their 

merits. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Olson’s motion 

to proceed IFP is DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-10196 Document: 00515267112 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2020