Case: 13-10644 Document: 00512480895 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 13-10644 December 23, 2013
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
VINCENT JOHN BAZEMORE, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:07-CR-312-1
Before JONES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Vincent John Bazemore, Jr., federal prisoner # 37160-177, moves for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s
denial of his motion for specific performance, or alternatively, to withdraw his
guilty plea. The motion filed in the district court challenged Bazemore’s 2009
conviction for securities fraud. As in the district court, Bazemore argues on
appeal that the Government breached the proffer agreement entered into
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 13-10644 Document: 00512480895 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2013
No. 13-10644
during the plea negotiation process. He contends that he is entitled to specific
performance of the agreement or to withdraw his guilty plea.
By moving for leave to proceed IFP on appeal, Bazemore is challenging
the district court’s certification that his appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue
and is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.
1997). Bazemore’s motion for specific enforcement, or alternatively to
withdraw his guilty plea, was unauthorized because the relief he sought was
not available under any federal rule or statute providing for postconviction
relief. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Therefore,
his appeal is “from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion.” See
Early, 27 F.3d at 142.
Bazemore’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his request
for leave to proceed IFP is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See
Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
2