USA v. Samuel Adams, No. 16-50678 (5th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 16-50678 Document: 00514020291 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-50678 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 5, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SAMUEL PHILIP ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:14-CR-100-1 Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Samuel Philip Adams, now federal prisoner # 31576-380, was convicted of possession of child pornography. He filed a motion in the district court styled, “Pro-Se Motion to Reverse ‘Void’ Federal Judgment/Conviction to Correct a ‘Manifest Injustice’ and Plain Error, Pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 52(b).” The district court denied the motion as meaningless and unauthorized and because it lacked jurisdiction. It 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-50678 Document: 00514020291 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2017 No. 16-50678 decertified Adams’s in forma pauperis (IFP) status. Adams has applied in this court for leave to proceed IFP. Adams asserts that the federal court had jurisdiction to reach his constitutional claims because he has a First Amendment right to petition the court for relief. Adams has not shown that his appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). We deny the motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and dismiss the appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.