Court Opinion

ID: 9386221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-11 18:00:28.528297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.115778
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50960         Document: 00516707126             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/11/2023

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

                                       No. 22-50960                                    FILED
                                                                                   April 11, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Dominic Villa,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                        USDC Nos. 7:19-CV-192, 7:18-CR-45-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Dominic Villa, federal prisoner # 97469-2850, seeks leave to proceed
   in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s order construing
   his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 motion as an unauthorized successive
   28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and transferring it to this court. In his motion, Villa
   alleged that (1) the district court coerced him into pleading guilty by asking

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50960      Document: 00516707126           Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/11/2023

                                     No. 22-50960

   him follow-up questions after he indicated that he had not had enough time
   to discuss the case with his attorney; (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective
   assistance during the plea hearing; (3) the Government mentioned the
   existence of a recorded phone call during the plea hearing, but never
   disclosed its existence prior to the hearing, violating Brady v. Maryland, 373
   U.S. 83 (1963); and (4) the district court erred in accepting his guilty plea
   without conducting a proper plea colloquy as required under Rule 11 of the
   Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
          By moving to proceed IFP on appeal, Villa 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). To obtain IFP status, Villa must
   show both financial eligibility and a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Carson
   v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).
          Even if Villa satisfies the financial eligibility requirement, he has not
   shown a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See id. His motion was filed more than
   three years after the judgment in his case and thus could not be deemed a
   Rule 33 motion. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1). In addition, it raises
   challenges to his guilty plea that were available to him at the time he filed his
   initial § 2255 motion. See United States v. Orozco-Ramirez, 211 F.3d 862, 867
   (5th Cir. 2000). Thus, his contention that his motion should not be deemed
   a successive § 2255 motion is frivolous. Absent authorization from this
   court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. See United
   States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 686 (5th Cir. 2015).
          Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the district court did not err in
   construing Villa’s Rule 33 motion as an unauthorized successive § 2255
   motion and transferring it to this court. Accordingly, we DENY the motion
   to proceed IFP on appeal and DISMISS Villa’s appeal as frivolous. See
   Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir R. 42.2.

                                              2