Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60976 Su m m ar yC al endar
U N IT E D S T A T E S O F AM E R IC A , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. H A R O L D D A M P E R , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

U SD C N o. 2: 98- C R

- 5- 1
B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * H arol d D am per, federalpri soner # 143 13

- 11 2, s e e ksperm i ssi on t o proceed i n f orm apa u p eris (IF P ) to ap p ea lthe distri ct cou rt’ s d en i a lo f h is m oti on to di s qua l i f

y Jud geK e i t h St ar r e t tpur s uantt o 2 8 U
. S. C. § 4 55
. Dam pe rc o nt e nds th a t J u d g e S ta r r e tta b u s e dh is d is c r e tio n inn o t im m e d ia te lyre c u s in gh im s e lf bec ause he “ w a s a ssigne d a c as e w her ei n hi s f i r stc ous i n, w hi l e a c t i ng as an a tt o r n e yfo rth e G o v e r n m e n t, ille g a llyd e s tr o y e de v id e n c e p r io rt o w h a t s h o u ld h ave been a m an da t ory ev i den t i ary h eari n g. ” D am per assert s t h at i n add i t i on United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

24, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60976

2 t o rec u si n g h i m sel f, Ju dg e Starret tshou l d haver e po r t e d As s i s t antU nit e d St at es A t t orney (A U S A) R i cha rd T
. Starret t ’ s un et h i calact i on s. Fu rt h erm ore, D am per a r g u e s th a t J u d g e S ta r r e ttfa ile d to h o ld a n e v id e n tia r yh e a r in gre g a r d in gh is § 2 255 m ot i on b ec ause Judge St ar r et tw as aw ar e o f hi s c ous i n’ s unet hi c al be hav i o r . Dam pe rf ur t he rc o nt e nds t hathe w as e nt i t l e d t o ane w s e nt e nc i ng hear i ng f

oll ow i ng Judge St ar r et t ’ s dec i si on t o v ac at e hi s pre vi ous ei ght

- year t er m of s upervi se d r el eas e a nd re duce i tt o as i x- yeart er m . B y m ovi ng f orl eave to p r o c e e dIF P , D a m p e ris ch a lle n g in gth e d is tr ic t co u r t’s c e r tific a tio n th a t h is
a p p e a l w a s n o t ta k e n in g o o dfa ith
. S ee B augh v. T aylor , 1 1 7 F
. 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 2 ( 5 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). D am per fai l s t o se t f or t h any fac t s t hat w oul d l ead a r eas onably o bj ec t ive p e r s o n to d o u b t t h e im p a r tia lityo f th e d is tr ic t c o u r tju d g e . S ee § 4 5 5 (a), (b) ; A ndrade v
. Choj nacki , 3 38 F. 3d4 48 , 454 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 3)
. Dam pe r ’ s a r gum e nt t hatJudge St ar r et ts houl d have r ec use d hi m se l f be c ause he w as aw ar e that A U S AStarret tdest royed ev id e n ce , an d as such he w as den i ed an evi den t i ary h eari n g on hi s § 225 5 m o tion w a s n otrai sed by D am per i n hi s m ot i on f or di sq ual i f

i c at i on bef

or e t he di st r i c tc our t
. I n hi s br i efs, D am perfai l s t o c hal l enge t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s reasoni n g f or den yi n g h i s m ot i on f or di squ al i f

i cat i on . H e does
n otchal l en g e J u dg e Starret t ’ s det erm i n ati on t h at th ere w as no ap pea ran ce of i m pr o pr i e t y r e s ul t i ng f r o m Jud geSt ar r e t t ’ s ha ndli ng o f D am pe r ’ s c as e s i nc e t he
ca se w a s rea ssign edf rom A U S AS tarre tt to a n oth er A U S Abe fore J u d ge S tarre tt
w as assi gn ed the case f rom Ju dg e C h arl es W
. P i ckeri n g. D am per al so does not cha l l en ge t h e di st ri ct c ou rt ’ s det erm i n ati ont h at di squ al i f i cat i on w as not req u i red u n d er § 4 5 5 (b)( 5 ) be ca u se, a l th ou gh Ju d ge S tarre tt a n dA U S AS tarre tt are f i rstcousi n s, t h ei r r el ati on is not “ a person w i t h i n t h e t h i rd degree of
r e la tio n s h ip .” W h e n a n a p p e ll a n t fa il s t o id e n t if y a n y e r r o r in t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’s
an al ysi s, i ti s t h e sam e as if t h e app e l l an tha d n otapp eal ed that i ssue. B ri n km an n v. D allas Cou n ty D epu ty S h erif f A bn er , 8 13 F
. 2d744 , 748 ( 5th C i r.N o. 08- 60976

3 1 9 8 7 ). A lth o u g h p r o s e b r ie fs a r e a ffo r d e dlib e r a l co n s tr u c tio n , Haines v. K erner , 4 0 4 U
. S
. 51 9 , 52 0 ( 1 9 7 2 ), ev en pr o se l i ti ga n ts m u st brief a rg u m en ts i n ord er to p r e s e rv e th e m . Yoheyv . Col l i ns , 9 8 5 F .2d 2 2 2 , 2 2 4 -2 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). T h e r e fo r e , D a m p e rh a s a b a n d o n e da n yc h a ll e n g e to th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s
c e r tific a tio n d e c is io n b yfa ilin gto ra is e th e is s u e s i n h is m o tio n o rb r ie f. S ee B r in k m a n n , 813 F. 2d at748. In an y e ve n t, D a m p er’ s as sertion tha t A U S AS tarre tt u n eth i ca lly d e s tr o y e de v id e n c e is n o t s u p p o r te db yth e re c o r d
. T h e e v id e n c e D a m p e ris
r e fe r r in gto inh is b r ie f is th e cr a c kco c a i n e th a t w a s s e iz e da s e v id e n c e inh is
case. O n A u gu st27, 200 2, Ju dg e P i ckeri n g gran t ed the G overnm en t ’ s r equ est t o d e s t r o yth e c r a c kc o c a in e , w h ic h w a s in t h e c u s t o d y o f th e F B I , s in c e D a m p e r ’s case had concl u ded . A s t h e G overnm en targu es i n i t s bri ef, t h e dest ructi on of evi denc e f

oll ow i ng t he conc l usi on of a c as e i s r out i ne. Furt her m or e, othert han
c o nc l us o r y as s e r t i o ns , D am pe rha s n otsh ow n a ny ba d fait h o n the pa r to f t he G o v e r n m e n t in d e s tr o y in gth e c r a c k co c a in e . Cf
. Un i t ed S t ate s v. G i bson , 963 F .2d 7 0 8 , 7 1 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). T o th e e x te n t D a m p e rch a lle n g e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n re ga rd in gh is 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2255 m ot i on , such a cl ai m w ou l d be u n revi ew able si n ce th is court has pr evi ous l y de ni ed a c er t i f i c at e o f appeal abi l i t y r egar di ng D am per ’ s § 2 255
m o t i o n, a nd h e ha s no ts o ugh tpe r m i s s i o n t o f i l e a su cc e s s ive§ 2 25 5 i n t he d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee § 2 255 (h )
. A ccor di n gl y, D am per’ s r equ estf or l eave to proc eed IF P is d e n ie d a n d h is a p p e a l is d is m is s e da s fr iv o lo u s . SeeB augh , 117 F
. 3d at 2 0 2 n .2 4 ; 5 THC IR . R
. 42. 2. I F P DE NI ED ; A P P EA L DI S M I S S ED
.