Court Opinion

ID: 9366238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 15:04:06.556525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.245347
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-10497      Document: 00516429436         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/11/2022

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

                                                                         FILED
                                                                   August 11, 2022
                                  No. 21-10497
                                Summary Calendar                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                         Clerk

   Ramiro Ordaz Melgoza,

                                                            Petitioner—Appellant,

                                       versus

   Michael Hardin, Warden,

                                                            Respondent—Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 1:21-CV-6

   Before Elrod, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges..
   Per Curiam: *
          Ramiro Ordaz Melgoza, federal prisoner # 21461-076, seeks leave to
   appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court’s dismissal of his
   28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his convictions. He also moves for
   judicial notice, for an extension of time, and for leave to exceed the appellate

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-10497      Document: 00516429436           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/11/2022

                                     No. 21-10497

   brief page limit. The district court denied Melgoza leave to appeal IFP and
   certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,
   117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
          Although Melgoza contends that the district court failed to consider
   three exhibits that were not included in the district court record, the district
   court ultimately included those exhibits in the record and reviewed them
   when the court denied his motion to reconsider and determined that the
   exhibits had no impact on its dismissal of Melgoza’s § 2241 petition.
   Additionally, although Melgoza attempts to incorporate by reference the
   arguments that he raised in his § 2241 petition, he may not do so. See Yohey
   v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Melgoza’s broad and vague
   remaining arguments do not address any specific arguments considered and
   rejected by the district court, nor do they otherwise address the basis for the
   district court’s dismissal. Because Melgoza has failed to adequately brief any
   of these issues, he has abandoned them. See id.
          In light of the foregoing, Melgoza has not demonstrated a nonfrivolous
   issue for appeal with respect to the district court’s dismissal. See Howard
   v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his motion for leave
   to appeal IFP is DENIED; all other outstanding motions are DENIED; and
   the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Baugh v. Taylor,
   117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

                                          2