Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Samuel Philip ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-05
Citations: 690 F. App'x 222
Docket Number: No. 16-50678 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Samuel Philip ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 222–223

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Samuel Philip ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-50678 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed June 5, 2017
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Samuel Philip Adams, Pro Se
Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Philip Adams, now federal prisoner # 31576-380, was convicted of possession of child pornography. He filed a motion in the district court styled, "Pro-Se Motion to Reverse 'Void' Federal Judgment/Conviction to Correct a 'Manifest Injustice' and Plain Error, Pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 52(b)." The district court denied the motion as meaningless and unauthorized and because it lacked jurisdiction. It decerti-fied Adams's in forma pauperis (IFP) status. Adams has applied in this court for leave to proceed IFP.
Adams asserts that the federal court had jurisdiction to reach his constitutional claims because he has a First Amendment right to petition the court for relief. Adams has not shown that his appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). We deny the motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and dismiss the appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cíe. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.