Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Olufemi Kayode AGBOMIRE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-06
Citations: 239 F. App'x 929
Docket Number: No. 06-20928
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Olufemi Kayode AGBOMIRE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 239
Pages: 929–930

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Olufemi Kayode AGBOMIRE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-20928
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 6, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Olufemi Kayode Agbomire, Bastrop, TX, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Olufemi Kayode Agbomire pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Agbomire appeals the district court's denial of his motion for court documents at government expense under 28 U.S.C. § 2250. Under § 2250, an indigent petitioner is entitled to court documents at no cost as long as he has filed a request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Walker v. United States, 424 F.2d 278, 278-79 (5th Cir.1970). When Agbomire filed his motion for court documents with the district court, he did not have a § 2255 motion pending before the district court. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Agbomire's motion. The appeal is dismissed as frivolous. 5th Cíe. R. 42.2. We caution Agbomire that filing frivolous appeals may be sanctioned. United States v. Gaitan, 171 F.3d 222, 223 (5th Cir.1999).
Agbomire's motion for transcripts at government expense is denied. Agbomire's motion to supplement the record on appeal is also denied.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED; MOTIONS DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.