United States v. Clark

283 F. App'x 207
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 19, 2008
Docket07-31045
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 F. App'x 207 (United States v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Clark, 283 F. App'x 207 (5th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Robert W. Clark, Jr., federal prisoner # 09895-035, seeks leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He seeks to *208 appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to disclose the grand jury transcript. Clark was convicted of conspiracy to distribute 50 or more grams of cocaine base (crack) and distribution of 50 or more grams of crack and was sentenced, in 1999, to 360 months of imprisonment on the conspiracy count and 240 months of imprisonment on the distribution count.

Clark has not shown that the district court had jurisdiction to grant his motion requesting the grand jury transcript in connection with a judicial proceeding. See United States v. Carvajal, 989 F.2d 170, 170 (5th Cir.1993). Moreover, he has not alleged that the material is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding, and he cannot conduct a “fishing expedition” to find something that may support further relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See id.

Because Clark’s appeal is wholly without merit and thus frivolous, see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1988), his IFP motion is denied and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.; Carvajal, 989 F.2d at 170. We warn Clark that the filing of frivolous appeals may result in the imposition of sanctions. These sanctions may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. Clark should review any pending appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *208 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jackson v. United States
638 F. Supp. 2d 514 (W.D. North Carolina, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 F. App'x 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-clark-ca5-2008.