United States v. Liningham

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-51093
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GREGORY ALLEN LININGHAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-93-CR-83-1
--------------------
February 19, 2003
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gregory Allen Liningham, a federal prisoner (# 60684-080),
has filed a motion requesting leave to appeal in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) following the district court’s order striking his
pro se postconviction motion, his fourth such motion, from the
record as frivolous and improperly filed. This court may
authorize Liningham to proceed IFP on appeal only if he is
economically eligible and his appeal is not frivolous. Jackson
v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). In
his latest postconviction action, a transparent effort to avoid
28 U.S.C. § 2255’s prohibitions against untimely and successive

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-51093
-2-
motions to vacate, Liningham asserts that various federal
officials fraudulently prosecuted and convicted him in 1993 in
order to punish him for failing to pay tax penalties to the
Internal Revenue Service. Liningham’s arguments are completely
unsupported by any reference to specific facts, and his latest
postconviction motion is an “unauthorized” and “meaningless” one
over which the district court lacked jurisdiction. See United
States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). The appeal is
without arguable merit, and we DENY IFP and DISMISS THE APPEAL AS
FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

-- 2 of 2 --