Court Opinion

ID: 9928065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 19:00:36.519299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:47:56.943376
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50459        Document: 00517049631             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/30/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                    United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                              Fifth Circuit

                                                                                            FILED
                                      No. 23-50459                                   January 30, 2024
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                            Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Keith Nunley,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 1:18-CR-399-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Keith Nunley, federal prisoner # 07360-480, has moved for leave to
   proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal
   of his pro se motion for a sentence reduction under Federal Rule of Criminal
   Procedure 35, and his motion to reconsider that dismissal. The district court
   denied Nunley’s IFP motion based on its finding that the appeal was untimely

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50459      Document: 00517049631          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/30/2024

                                    No. 23-50459

   and its conclusion that he sought to appeal orders dismissing unauthorized
   motions over which it lacked jurisdiction
          By moving to proceed IFP, Nunley is challenging the district court’s
   certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,
   117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court may dismiss an appeal during
   consideration of an interlocutory motion if the appeal is frivolous and wholly
   without merit. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
          The notice of appeal filed in this case was untimely as to both the order
   dismissing the Rule 35(b) motion and the order disposing of the motion to
   reconsider. See United States v. Brewer, 60 F.3d 1142, 1143-44 (5th Cir. 1995);
   Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). Further, the appeal was filed beyond the time
   to extend the appeal period for good cause or excusable neglect. See Fed.
   R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Thus, the district court did not err in enforcing the time
   limitations set forth in Rule 4(b), and this court may not reverse its decision
   to do so. See United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006).
          Furthermore, Nunley has not shown that the district court erred in its
   alternative finding that he sought to appeal from unauthorized motions over
   which it lacked jurisdiction. Nunley moved under Rule 35(b) pro se, and his
   motion thus was unauthorized and lacked a jurisdictional basis. See Fed. R.
   Crim. P. 35(b); United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141 (5th Cir. 1994). His
   motion to reconsider also had no legal basis because it sought reexamination
   of the dismissal of an unauthorized motion. To the extent that he alleged that
   the Government was deficient for not filing a Rule 35(b) motion requesting a
   more significant reduction, he has not alleged or shown that the motion was
   not filed due to an unconstitutional motive, Wade v. United States, 504 U.S.
   181, 185-86 (1992), or that the Government bargained away its discretion,
   United States v. Grant, 493 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2007).

                                          2
Case: 23-50459    Document: 00517049631         Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/30/2024

                                 No. 23-50459

         Accordingly, the instant appeal is without arguable merit. Nunley’s
   request for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is therefore DENIED, and his
   appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24;
   Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. His
   motion to permit an attachment to his brief is DENIED.

                                      3