United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 23, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-20679
Summary Calendar
RICHARD BAGGETT
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Respondent - Appellee
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CV-1277
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Baggett, Texas prisoner # 507596, appeals the denial
of FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) relief and moves for a certificate of
appealability (COA) and permission to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) to challenge the district court’s transfer order construing
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his aggravated sexual
assault conviction as successive. He has also moved for a three-
judge panel.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-20679
-2-
The district court’s transfer order that Baggett seeks to
challenge is a non-appealable interlocutory order. See Brinar v.
Williamson, 245 F.3d 515, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2001). Therefore the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60(b)
relief. See Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402
(5th Cir. 1981). Because this case presents only Baggett’s
appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and is not an
appeal from the merits of his habeas petition, no COA is
required. See Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d 491, 492 (5th Cir.
2002).
AFFIRMED; COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; IFP DENIED; MOTION FOR
THREE-JUDGE PANEL DENIED AS MOOT.