IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41064
Conference Calendar
IN RE: DANIEL JOHNSON SHEEHAN
Movant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:98-MC-14
- - - - - - - - - -
April 19, 1999
Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In addressing Daniel John Sheehan’s** motion for
authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition in the district court, this court entered a limited
remand for the district court to determine whether Sheehan’s
claims in his proposed petition were successive. In Re Sheehan,
No. 98-00096 (5th Cir. May 5, 1998). Following the remand, we
denied Sheehan’s motion for authorization with regard to the 1991
and 1992 revocations of his supervised release because he failed
to make a prima facie showing that the proposed petition would
involve either newly discovered evidence or a new rule of
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
**
Texas prisoner # 426771
No. 98-41064
-2-
constitutional law that was previously unavailable, and we denied
as unnecessary Sheehan’s motion for authorization with regard to
his challenge to the 1996 revocation of supervised release
because it appeared that this would be his first § 2254 petition
challenging that revocation. In Re Sheehan, No. 98-00096 (5th
Cir. Aug. 18, 1998).
Sheehan has filed several motions in his attempt to appeal
the district court’s order on remand. He concedes that there was
no final judgment and moves for dismissal of the appeal without
prejudice. Out of “an abundance of caution,” he moves for a
certificate of appealability (COA). He then “moves the court to
grant interlocutory appeal status.” He also requests disclosure
of “archive records” and wavier of any related fees and moves for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), Sheehan’s proposed
§ 2254 petition was not filed in the district court, thus there
is no appealable final judgment or order. To the extent Sheehan
seeks to challenge the denial of his motion for authorization,
that decision is not appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(E). We
DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Sheehan’s motions
are DENIED as MOOT.
We caution Sheehan that vexatious motions and frivolous
appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition
of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Sheehan should review any
pending motions or appeals to ensure that they do not raise
arguments that are frivolous.
No. 98-41064
-3-
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED AS MOOT; SANCTIONS WARNING
ISSUED.