Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jason GIL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-19
Citations: 242 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 07-50130
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jason GIL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 242
Pages: 276–276

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jason GIL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50130
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 19, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason Gil, Bastrop, TX, pro se.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jason Gil, federal prisoner # 12794-180, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court's denial of his motion seeking to re-open his direct appeal period. The district court determined that Gil's motion was unauthorized and untimely.
Pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 24(a), this court may entertain a motion to proceed IFP when the litigant has been denied leave to proceed IFP by the district court. To proceed IFP, Gil must demonstrate financial eligibility and a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 24(a); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982).
Gil has filed a brief addressing the merits of various claims relating to the validity of his conviction and sentence. He has not, however, briefed the basis for the district court's denial of his motion, and that issue is therefore abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Because Gil fails to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal, his motion to proceed IFP is denied. See Rule 24(a); Carson, 689 F.2d at 586. The appeal is without merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; APPEAL 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.