Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joseph William WOLFE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-03
Citations: 631 F. App'x 260
Docket Number: No. 15-10737
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joseph William WOLFE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 631
Pages: 260–260

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joseph William WOLFE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10737.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 3, 2016.
Joseph William Wolfe, Edgefield, SC, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Joseph William Wolfe, federal prisoner # 37730-177, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his motion for review of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1), alleging that he was eligible for sentencing without regard to the applicable statutory minimum sentence. He also seeks to proceed IFP on appeal from the dismissal of his motion "to request a writ to vacate" his federal conviction and sentence, which he claimed resulted from fraud and errors of a constitutional dimension.
There are no nonfrivolous appellate issues because the district court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Wolfe's motions. This appeal therefore is from the denial of "meaningless, unauthorized motionfs]." United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994). Wolfe has failed to show that his appeal involves "legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous)." Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, see id., and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197,202 & n. 24 (5th Cir.1997). Wolfe's motion for the appointment of counsel and his motion for relief from a void federal judgment also are DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cm. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.