Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin A. CALDERON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-19
Citations: 231 F. App'x 366
Docket Number: No. 06-10932
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin A. CALDERON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 366–367

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin A. CALDERON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10932
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 19, 2007.
Vicki H. Lamberson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Amarillo, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Martin A. Calderon, Three Rivers, TX, pro se.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Martin A. Calderon, federal prisoner #25031-051, appeals the denial of his postjudgment motion, "Replevin/Sequestration Return of Creditor's Secured Property. Release of Debtor's Surety, and Vacate Exemption." In the motion, Calderon referred to himself as "DEBTOR ROY MARTINEZ/AKA/MARTIN CALDERON" and asked the district court to vacate "the original action against DEBTOR" and to "release the DEBTOR'S surety Roy Martinez/aka/ Martin Calderon from liability." The district court denied the motion, finding that it was frivolous.
Calderon has appealed from the denial of a meaningless motion. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir.1994). No matter how his postconviction motion is construed, the appeal of its denial is frivolous. See Montgomery v. United States, 933 F.2d 348, 350 (5th Cir. 1991). The appeal is therefore dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Calderon is warned that further frivolous filings will result in the imposition of sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir, R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.