Case: 19-20300 Document: 00515491769 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-20300
July 16, 2020
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RHONDA FLEMING,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:12-CV-2799
Before WIENER, SOUTHWICK, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Rhonda Fleming, federal prisoner # 20446-009, appeals an April 8, 2019
order denying relief on various postjudgment motions she filed in a closed
28 U.S.C. § 2255 case after the district court warned her not to do so. The April
18, 2019 notice of appeal was not timely as to the district court’s April 2014
order denying the § 2255 motion or an October 2018 order denying a motion to
supplement and a motion for a hearing, nor were these dispositions designated
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-20300 Document: 00515491769 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2020
No. 19-20300
in the notice of appeal. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to consider those
decisions in the instant appeal. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007);
FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B); FED. R. APP. P. 3(c)(1).
Fleming does not challenge the district court’s April 8th order denying,
dismissing, or striking her seven postjudgment motions although it was the
only order designated in the notice of appeal. By failing to do so, Fleming has
abandoned the only issues over which we have jurisdiction. See Hughes
v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999). Moreover, the postjudgment
motions were, essentially, meaningless, unauthorized motions which the
district court was without jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Early,
27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, Fleming’s appeal is without
arguable merit, see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983), and
it is therefore DISMISSED as frivolous, see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Fleming was most recently sanctioned by this court, while this appeal
was pending, on August 1, 2019, in denying her two petitions for writs of
mandamus. In re Fleming, No. 19-20128 c/w 19-20376, at 5 (5th Cir. Aug. 1,
2019) (unpublished) (imposing a $200 sanction). Fleming is REMINDED that
she is barred from filing any pleadings in this court or any court subject to this
court’s jurisdiction until the sanction has been paid in full, unless she first
obtains leave of the court in which she seeks to file her pleadings. Fleming is
CAUTIONED that the filing of future frivolous or repetitive challenges to her
conviction, sentence, or continued incarceration in this court or any court
subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject her to additional and
progressively more severe sanctions.
2