eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2021-03

United States v. Rodgers ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 20-40137     Document: 00515764456          Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/03/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                          United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-40137                      March 3, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Ronald Lynn Rodgers,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CR-24-1
Before Stewart, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ronald Lynn Rodgers, federal prisoner # 20650-078, moves for
permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of
his postjudgment motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b). He argues the written judgment of conviction includes
special supervised release conditions that were not orally pronounced at the
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40137      Document: 00515764456           Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/03/2021
No. 20-40137
sentencing hearing. He asserts that the oral pronouncement controls and
that the case should be remanded for the district court to omit the special
conditions that were not orally pronounced at sentencing.
By moving for IFP status, Rodgers is challenging the district court’s
denial of leave to proceed IFP on appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor,
    117 F.3d 197
    ,
199-202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court may entertain such a motion when the
district court denied the litigant leave to proceed IFP. Fed. R. App.
P. 24(a). To proceed IFP on appeal, Rodgers must meet the financial criteria
and must raise a nonfrivolous issue. Carson v. Polley,
    689 F.2d 562
    , 586 (5th
Cir. 1982);
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (a)(1).
The rules of civil procedure do not provide for relief in criminal
proceedings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(a). Rodgers
filed this Rule 60(b) motion in his criminal proceedings, attacking his
criminal judgment. The motion was thus “a meaningless, unauthorized
motion” that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider. United States
v. Early,
    27 F.3d 140
    , 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994).
Even if Rodgers’s motion is liberally construed as seeking relief under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, his appeal is without arguable merit.
Rule 36 is a limited tool “meant only to correct ‘mindless and mechanistic
mistakes.’” United States v. Ramirez-Gonzalez,
    840 F.3d 240
    , 247 (5th Cir.
2016) (citation omitted). Because Rodgers does not argue that the district
court made clerical or mechanistic mistakes or accidentally included special
conditions in the written judgment, the relief he sought was beyond the scope
of relief permissible under Rule 36. Accordingly, Rodgers’s appeal is without
arguable merit and is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King,
    707 F.2d 215
    , 219-
20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. His IFP motion is DENIED. See
Howard,
    707 F.2d at 219-20
    .
2
Case: 20-40137     Document: 00515764456          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/03/2021
No. 20-40137
Rodgers is ADVISED that the continued filing of frivolous,
repetitive, or otherwise abusive attempts to challenge his conviction or
sentence will invite the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal,
monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this
court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See Coghlan v.
Starkey,
    852 F.2d 806
    , 817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988).
3