United States v. Alexander Groys

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: June 18, 2019
• Docket: 18-41179
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 18-41179 Document: 00515000203 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-41179 FILED Summary Calendar June 18, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEXANDER GROYS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14-CR-111-1

Before SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alexander Groys is serving a 78-month sentence imposed in 2015 for possession of child pornography. He appeals the district court’s denial in 2018, of a so-called “Motion for Judicial Notice.” The Government moves to dismiss the appeal as frivolous because neither the motion nor the appeal brief make sense.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-41179 Document: 00515000203 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2019

No. 18-41179

The cryptic motion did not seek specific relief from the judgment against Groys but vaguely questioned the jurisdiction of the district court and the constitutional authority of prosecutors. Lacking any coherent substance, it can be fairly construed only as meaningless, unauthorized, and without any jurisdictional basis. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). The appeal brief also fails to raise any relevant issue. The appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Groys is WARNED that additional frivolous filings in this court or the district court will result in monetary sanctions and limits on his access to this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.