Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Melvin WIAND, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-17
Citations: 673 F. App'x 429
Docket Number: No. 15-10835 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Melvin WIAND, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 673
Pages: 429–430

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Melvin WIAND, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-10835 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed January 17, 2017
Melvin Wiand, Pro Se
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Wiand, federal prisoner # 37221-177, has appealed the district court's order construing his motion invoking Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and transferring the matter to this court for further proceedings. Wiand asserts that his conviction resulted from a "forged and fabricated" consent-to-search form and that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance in failing to challenge the form at the suppression hearing. Because these claims were raised and rejected in a prior § 2255 proceeding, they are successive. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005).
Wiand has not obtained this court's leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See § 2255(h). Accordingly, the motion was unauthorized, and the district court lacked jurisdiction. See In re Sepulvado, 707 F.3d 550, 556 (5th Cir. 2013). The appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Wiand is WARNED that frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court's jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4,