United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 23, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-10773
Conference Calendar
DON BENNY ANDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
L. E. FLEMING, Warden,
Federal Medical Center-Fort Worth
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CV-521-A
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Don Benny Anderson (federal prisoner #06260-026) filed a
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 wherein he sought to
challenge his criminal convictions for interfering with commerce
by threats or violence and aiding and abetting, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1951. Noting that Anderson had filed at least
three prior motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 which attacked the
same judgment at issue in his instant petition, the district
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-10773
-2-
court construed the petition as a second or successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence, and
dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
Anderson moves this court for leave to proceed on appeal
without a certificate of appealability (COA). The motion is
GRANTED. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, Tx., 305 F.3d
343, 345 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 1374 (2003).
All other outstanding motions are DENIED.
Anderson argues that his conviction violates double
jeopardy, that his counsel was ineffective, and that he is
actually innocent of the counts charged in the indictment.
Anderson does not, however, address the district court’s
dismissal of his petition for lack of jurisdiction. Nor does he
seek this court’s authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion, or explain why he should be allowed to proceed
with his claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Although this court construes pro se pleadings liberally,
even pro se litigants must abide by the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651,
653 (5th Cir. 1994). An appellant’s brief must contain an
argument, which in turn must contain his “contentions and the
reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of
the record on which the appellant relies” and “for each issue, a
concise statement of the applicable standard of review.” FED.
No. 02-10773
-3-
R. APP. P. 28(a)(9). Because he has failed to identify any error
in the district court’s analysis, Anderson has abandoned the only
issue for appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); FED. R. APP. P.
28(a)(9). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Anderson v. Fleming
Combined Opinion