United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-20932
Conference Calendar
CLINTON W. DELESPINE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CV-2721
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Clinton W. Delespine, Texas prisoner # 187450, has filed a
motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the
district court’s denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion for
relief from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application
challenging his 1963 conviction and sentence for murder as
successive.
To obtain a COA, Delespine must make a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-20932
-2-
When the district court has denied relief on procedural grounds,
the applicant must show “that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find
it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Delespine does not challenge the district court’s denial of
his Rule 60(b) motion and argues only the merits of his habeas
claims. Therefore, he has abandoned the issue and has failed to
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district
court’s procedural ruling. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607,
613 (5th Cir. 1999); Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Further, to the
extent Delespine is raising new claims, this court does not have
jurisdiction to consider claims raised for the first time in a
COA motion. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th
Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Delespine’s motion for a COA is denied.
This is the ninth COA motion in which Delespine has failed
to challenge the district court’s reasons for dismissing his
habeas application. This court recently sanctioned Delespine and
barred him from filing in this court or in any court subject to
this court’s jurisdiction any pleading that challenges the
aforementioned conviction and sentence until the $200 sanction
is paid in full. See Delespine v. Quarterman, No. 04-20993
(5th Cir. June 21, 2006) (unpublished). This court also warned
Delespine to review all pending appeals to ensure that they were
No. 05-20932
-3-
not frivolous. Id. at 3. Despite this court’s warning,
Delespine persists in the prosecution of the instant frivolous
appeal, as well as the frivolous appeal in Delespine v.
Quarterman, No. 05-20176. Therefore, it is ordered that
Delespine pay one monetary sanction of $100 to the Clerk of Court
for both the instant case and Delespine v. Quarterman, No. 05-
20176. This amount is in addition to the $200 sanction imposed
on June 21, 2006, in Delespine v. Quarterman, No. 04-20993,
making the total sanctions $300. Delespine is barred from filing
in this court or in any court subject to this court’s
jurisdiction any pleading that challenges the aforementioned
conviction and sentence until the $300 sanctions are paid in
full. Delespine is further cautioned that any future frivolous
or repetitive filings in this court or any court subject to this
court’s jurisdiction will subject him to additional sanctions as
will the failure to withdraw any pending matters that are
frivolous.
COA DENIED; SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.