IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11594

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DONALD JOSEPH WEST,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:16-CV-76

Before DENNIS, WILLETT, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donald Joseph West was convicted of aggravated bank robbery, using 

and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and being 

a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 420 months of 

imprisonment. West seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) regarding the 

denial of a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition. We will deny the COA and 

impose sanctions against West.

* 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

March 23, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-11594 Document: 00515355914 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2020
No. 18-11594

2

We lack jurisdiction over an untimely appeal from the denial of a § 2255 

petition. United States v. Olson, 789 F. App’x 490, 491 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing 

inter alia United States v. McDaniels, 907 F.3d 366, 369 (5th Cir. 2018)). Here, 

the district court denied West’s § 2255 petition on August 29, 2018. West’s 

notice of appeal was signed on November 29, 2018, well outside the 60-day 

period for appealing the denial. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(B)(i). West had previously filed a motion to amend or correct the district 

court’s order, but because that motion was signed on October 2, 2018, it did not 

extend the time to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e) (such a motion must be filed within twenty-eight days of 

judgment). We therefore lack jurisdiction over the district court’s denial of 

West’s § 2255 petition, such that a COA to appeal that denial is inappropriate.

West appears also to appeal the district court’s denial of an evidentiary 

hearing to support his claims, which was entered on November 19, 2018.

Although an appeal from the denial of an evidentiary hearing does not require 

a COA, see Norman v. Stephens, 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016), here, the 

district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain West’s request because it was 

redundant to previous requests. See United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 

(5th Cir. 2000). Indeed, we have twice noted that West’s identical, previous 

requests were redundant. We will therefore dismiss West’s appeal of the denial 

of an evidentiary hearing.

The COA is therefore DENIED. The appeal from the district court’s 

denial of an evidentiary hearing is DISMISSED. West’s motion to proceed

IFP is DENIED as unnecessary. All other accompanying motions are DENIED.

Almost a year ago, we warned West that he would be sanctioned for “any 

further attempts to challenge [his] conviction and sentence that do not meet 

the criteria for filing a successive § 2255 motion.” In re: Donald Joseph West, 

 Case: 18-11594 Document: 00515355914 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2020
No. 18-11594

3

No. 19-10029 (5th Cir. Mar. 19, 2019). We ordered West to “review all pending 

matters and move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise 

abusive.” Id. Two months later, after West failed to adhere to our order, we 

ordered him to pay $100 as a sanction and directed that “[u]ntil that sanction 

is paid, West may file no more appeals or initial pleadings challenging the

validity of his conviction and sentence, whether those challenges are governed

by § 2255 or any other statutory provision, in this court or in any court under 

this court’s jurisdiction, without first obtaining the permission of this court or

the forum court.” In re: Donald Joseph West, No. 19-10491 (5th Cir. May 22, 

2019). We further warned West that “future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise 

abusive filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will

subject him to additional and progressively more severe sanctions.” Id. And we 

again ordered West to “review all pending matters and move to dismiss any

that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive to avoid additional 

sanctions.” Id.

Court records reflect West has not fulfilled payment of his previous $100 

sanction and that in addition to this matter, on August 7, 2019, well after our 

imposition of sanctions, West moved for yet another COA in yet another action.

We will therefore impose additional sanctions.

West is therefore ORDERED to pay $200 to the clerk of court in addition 

to our previous $100 sanction. Until West fulfills both payments, he is 

ENJOINED from making any filings pertaining to any post-conviction relief in 

this court or any court under our jurisdiction. After his payments are fulfilled, 

West is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from making any additional filings

pertaining to any post-conviction relief in this court or any court under our 

jurisdiction without first receiving permission from the forum court.

 Case: 18-11594 Document: 00515355914 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/23/2020
No. 18-11594

4

West is further ORDERED to dismiss any additional filings pertaining 

to any post-conviction relief in this court or any court under our jurisdiction 

within thirty days of entry of this order.

West is yet again WARNED that future frivolous, repetitive, or 

otherwise abusive filings in this court or any court under our jurisdiction will

subject him to additional and progressively more severe sanctions.

West is finally WARNED that violations of this court’s or the district 

court’s orders, including violations of this order, may result in prosecution for 

civil or criminal contempt. See 18 U.S.C. § 401.

 Case: 18-11594 Document: 00515355914 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/23/2020