Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-21
Citations: 397 F. App'x 999
Docket Number: No. 10-50153
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 999–1000

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50153
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 21, 2010.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Daniel Dominguez, Pollock, LA, pro se.
Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Dominguez seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. To proceed IFP on appeal, Dominguez must show that he is a pauper and that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir.1986).
Dominguez filed in the district court two motions, asserting that he had satisfied his criminal judgment that was entered on November 9, 2000. Dominguez's motions were unauthorized motions which the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994). The district court could not construe the motions as Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 motions because they were neither made by the Government nor made within seven days of sentencing. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 35; Early, 27 F.3d at 141. The motions were also not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because they were not based upon an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. See § 3582(c)(2); Early, 27 F.3d at 142. In addition, the district court could not construe the motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3742, as relief thereunder is reserved only for direct appeals. See § 3742. Finally, the district court did not have jurisdiction to construe the motions as 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions because Dominguez had previously filed a § 2255 motion and had not re ceived permission from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion. See Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir.1999).
Dominguez's appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore dismissed as frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
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.