### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-40340 Summary Calendar

ISHMAEL SALAHUDDIN, also known as Ismail Saladin, Petitioner-Appellant

v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF C RIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:08-CV-138

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ishmael Salahuddin, Tex a s p r isoner # 1297582, w a s convicted by a jury of five counts of attempted capital m u r der, one count of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, and one count of escape. He was sentence d t o l i f e in prison on each capital murder count and the escape count and to 99 y ears on the cocaine count. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 7, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-40340 Document: 00512334006 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2013No. 13-40340

In 2008, Salahuddin filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, whi ch was dismissed by th e district c ourt; this court denied him a certificate of appealability (COA). He filed three postjudgment motions p ursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Proc e d u r e , a sserting that he was denied his right to counsel in connection with a psychiatric evaluation and a competency proceeding, that he

was denied his right to repr e s e nt himself, and that the S tate had committed fraud on the court. The distri c t c o u r t denied the motions as successive § 2254 petitions and r ejected Salahuddin’s fraud c laims. This court denied a COA as to the first two motions. See Salahuddin v. Thale r , No. 11-40487 (August 1, 2011) (single-judge order); Salahuddin v. Thaler , No. 1 0

- 4 0 9 1 4 (February 3, 2011) (single-judge order). A COA r equest remains p e nding in Case No. 12- 41124. Salahud d i n t h e n filed the subject m otion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 1 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In it, he reiterated his a ssertion s that he was d enied his right to counsel and his right of self-representation and argued that the S t ate misrepresented t o t he court that ( a) he h ad waived his

r i ght of self-representation, and (b) the claim w a s not cognizable, was procedurally defaulted, and w as without merit. The district cou r t d e n i e d the sanctions motion, and Salahuddin appeals that ruling. As a threshold matter, we deny a COA a s unnecessary because the order denying Rule 11 sanctions did not dispose of the merits of Salahuddin’s § 2254 petition. See Harbison v. Bell , 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009). We review the denial of Rule 11 sanction s f o r an abuse of discretion. F r i e nds for Am. Free Enterprise Ass’n v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 284 F.3d 5 7 5 , 577-78 (5th Cir. 2002). In addition to failing to comply w ith the notice p r ocedure of Rule 1 1(c)(2), S alahuddin h as not raised a ny issue of merit. The record shows that Salahuddin withdrew a p rior request to represent himself and consented to

r e p r e s e ntation of c ounsel, Mark Woerner. Thus, the State’s assertion that he had waived his right of self-representation was supported factually and legally.
2 Case: 13-40340 Document: 00512334006 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2013No. 13-40340

See Brown v. Wainwright , 665 F.2d 607, 611 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). Further, t h e S t ate c orrectly asserted that federal habeas relief was not available to t h e extent that S alahuddin cited t h e T e x a s C onstitution, s ee Estelle v. M cGuire , 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991), and Salahuddin offers only conclusory ar gu m e nts that his claim w as not defaulted. In short, the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the State had not violated Rule 11. See F E D
. R. C I V
. P. 11(b). Because Salahuddin has failed to raise an issue of arguable merit, we dismiss h is appeal as frivolous. See Lyons v. Sheetz , 834 F.2d 493, 496 ( 5th Cir. 1987); 5 T H C I R
. R. 4 2

. 2

. Salahuddin w as previously cautioned th at frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings c o uld result in sanctions and r estrictions

on h is ab i l i t y to file pleadings. Salahuddin did not heed that warning. Accordingly, he is ordered to pay a sanction in the amount of $100 to the clerk of this c o urt

. F u rther, he is barred from filing in this court or in any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction any challenge to the above-mentioned convictions or sentences until the sanction is paid in full, unless he first obtains leave of the c ourt i n wh i ch he seeks t o file such challenge. S alahuddin is cautioned again that any futur e f rivo l o us, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings in this court or in any court s ubject to this court’s jurisdiction w ill subject him to additional and progressively more severe sanctions. COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

3 Case: 13-40340 Document: 00512334006 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/07/2013