United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50676
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODERICK DARNELL WATSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:95-CR-112-1
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roderick Darnell Watson has filed an application for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the denial
of his motion to compel the Government to file a FED. R. CRIM. P.
35 motion. The district court denied Watson leave to proceed IFP
on appeal, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good
faith. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Watson is
challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v.
Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); FED. R. APP. P.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-50676
-2-
24(a)(5). However, Watson has not demonstrated a nonfrivolous
issue for appeal.
Watson argues that the Government breached the plea
agreement in which it promised to file a motion for a downward
departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 based on Watson’s
substantial assistance. Watson argues that he has provided
substantial assistance which helped the Government prosecute and
obtain convictions of several drug dealers.
As the law has no provision for a motion such as Watson’s,
this appeal is “from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized
motion.” See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.
1994). Watson has failed to show that his appeal involves “legal
points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).”
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the motion for leave to
proceed IFP on appeal is denied and the appeal is dismissed as
frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Watson is warned that the filing or prosecution of frivolous
motions or appeals in the future will subject him to sanctions.
See FED. R. APP. P. 38; Clark v. Green, 814 F.2d 221, 223 (5th
Cir. 1987).
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS
FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.