Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. George David REBANT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-23
Citations: 670 F. App'x 871
Docket Number: No. 15-40773 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. George David REBANT, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 871–871

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. George David REBANT, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-40773 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 11/23/2016
Terri-Lei O’Malley, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
George David Rebant, Pro Se
Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
George David Rebant, federal prisoner # 93999-279, seeks leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He challenges the denial of his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his IFP motion in the district court. His IFP motion was filed in connection with his appeal of the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking a sentence reduction. This court previously dismissed Rebant's appeal from the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. United States v. Rebant, No. 15-40773 (5th Cir. Nov. 19, 2015) (order dismissing appeal as untimely).
Rebant does not address the district court's reasons for denying his IFP motion. When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court's analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that issue. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8). Thus, Rebant's motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.