Court Opinion

ID: 9905743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 01:02:41.127927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:52.473448
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50736        Document: 00516983760             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/29/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50736
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                              November 29, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Securities and Exchange Commission,                                                Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   William J. Milles, Jr.,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:19-CV-714
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         William J. Milles, Jr., seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on
   appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the
   Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). He contends that the district
   court erred in denying his motion for joinder and in granting summary
   judgment in favor of the SEC as another individual was responsible for

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50736      Document: 00516983760           Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/29/2023

                                     No. 22-50736

   supplying him with fraudulent or misleading information that he then
   provided to investors.
          Milles’s motion to proceed IFP and his appellate brief are construed
   as a challenge to 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); 28 U.S.C.
   § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). To proceed IFP, Milles must
   demonstrate both financial eligibility and a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See
   Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). An appeal presents
   nonfrivolous issues when it raises legal points that are arguable on the merits.
   Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). If the appeal is frivolous,
   we may dismiss it sua sponte. 5th Cir. R. 42.2; see Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
   & n.24.
          Milles’s conclusory arguments do not present a nonfrivolous issue for
   appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Consequently, he has not made the
   requisite showing for leave to proceed IFP on appeal. See Carson, 689 F.2d
   at 586. Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is
   DISMISSED as frivolous. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); 5th Cir.
   R. 42.2.

                                          2