IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10739

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MERVIN GLEN ANDERSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:90-CR-165-1

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Mervin Glen Anderson, federal prisoner # 12497-076, was convicted in

1991 of kidnaping and violating the Mann Act and was sentenced to 360 months

of imprisonment. Glen Anderson has filed a motion to proceed as a sanctioned

litigant and requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from

the denial of his motion to file a second 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion and from the

district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 17, 2012

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: 11-10739 Document: 00511727063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2012
No. 11-10739

We previously imposed a $200 sanction after we dismissed as frivolous

Anderson’s appeal from the denial of relief based on his argument that he was

entitled to a reduction in his sentence under Amendment 478 to the Guidelines. 

We warned Anderson that filing any future frivolous or repetitive challenges to

his conviction or sentence in this court or any court subject to this court’s

jurisdiction would subject him to additional sanctions. Anderson has paid the

sanction. Accordingly, Anderson’s motion to proceed as a sanctioned litigant is

DENIED AS MOOT. 

Only Anderson’s motion to proceed IFP is before the court. When a district

court certifies that an appeal is not taken in good faith, a prisoner may either

pay the filing fee or challenge the district court’s certification decision by moving

for IFP in this court. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This

court’s inquiry into the prisoner’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal

involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). 

A district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2)

and its decision to deny a motion for reconsideration are reviewed for abuse of

discretion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009); United

States v. O’Keefe, 128 F.3d 885, 892 (5th Cir. 1997). Anderson’s motion to file a

second § 3582(c) motion, is repetitive, as he has twice before sought relief based

on Amendment 478. This court has twice determined that Anderson’s appeals

from the denial of relief based on Amendment 478 were frivolous. See United

States v. Anderson, No. 07-10430 (5th Cir. Dec. 11, 2007); United States v.

Anderson, No. 03-10905 (5th Cir. June 23, 2004). Anderson’s appeal from the

denial of the instant motion is, therefore, frivolous. See Howard, 707 F.2d at

219-20. His motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. Because the appeal is frivolous,

it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Anderson’s filings indicate that he has ignored this court’s warning that

filing any future frivolous or repetitive challenges to his conviction or sentence

2

Case: 11-10739 Document: 00511727063 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2012
No. 11-10739

in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction would subject him

to additional sanctions. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED Anderson pay a monetary

sanction of $300. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of this court and the clerks of

all federal district courts within this circuit are directed to refuse to file any

challenge to Anderson’s 1991 conviction, or appeal from such challenge, unless

Anderson submits proof of satisfaction of the $300 sanction. If Anderson

attempts to file any further notices of appeal or original proceedings in this court

without such proof the clerk will docket them for administrative purposes only.

Any other submissions which do not show proof that the sanction has been paid

will neither be addressed nor acknowledged.

Anderson is WARNED that, even if he pays the instant $300 sanction, the

filing of any future frivolous or repetitive challenges to his conviction or sentence

in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him to

progressively more severe sanctions.

3

Case: 11-10739 Document: 00511727063 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/17/2012