Case Name: Herbert BUTLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-13
Citations: 685 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 16-30312
Parties: Herbert BUTLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 685
Pages: 327–327

Head Matter:
Herbert BUTLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-30312
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed April 13, 2017
Herbert Butler, Pro Se
Dale R. Lee, Assistant District Attorney, District Attorney’s Office for the 9th JDC—Parish of E. Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge, LA, for Respondent-Appellee
Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Herbert Butler, Louisiana prisoner # 124959, was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He moves for a certificate of appeala-bility ("COA") and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") to challenge the denial of his motion for permission to file a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion. That proposed motion sought to challenge a state appellate court's finding that Butler had failed to preserve a particular issue for review on direct appeal.
Because the proposed motion does not address any aspect of the denial of Butler's
28 U.S.C. § 2254 application, it raises new claims, so it is a successive Section 2254 application. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532-33, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005). Because Butler did not have this court's permission to file a second or successive application, the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider it. See In re Sepulvado, 707 F.3d 550, 556 (5th Cir. 2013). Therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED. See United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774-75 (5th Cir. 2000).
To the extent that Butler is required to obtain a COA, his request is DENIED, because he has not made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal also is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.