Kelly Cineus v. Keith Hall, No. 12-10352 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-10352 Document: 00512083785 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-10352 Summary Calendar December 13, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk KELLY CINEUS, Petitioner-Appellant v. KEITH HALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:11-CV-98 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Kelly Cineus, federal prisoner # 65911-004, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the denial of the most recent petition challenging his conviction in the Southern District of Florida for importation of cocaine and a removal order and related detainer pending against him. He asserts that Titles 8, 21, and 28 of the United States Code and his statute of conviction are unconstitutional and void because they were not passed in accordance with * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-10352 Document: 00512083785 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2012 No. 12-10352 proper legislative procedures. He also claims we should vacate the criminal judgment because the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Cineus does not address the district court s reasons for certifying that his appeal was not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). He does not explain how the District Court for the Northern District of Texas had jurisdiction to consider a challenge to his Southern District of Florida conviction. He does not explain why his petition was not an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He does not explain how he was entitled to file the petition in light of the district court s previous orders sanctioning him for frivolous and malicious filings. Nor does he explain how the court had jurisdiction to consider a challenge to the removal order. Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). The failure by Cineus to address the district court s bases for dismissing his claims, without even the slightest identification of any error in [the district court s] legal analysis or its application to [his] suit . . ., is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Moreover, his substantive claims are nonsensical and frivolous. Because the appeal does not involve legal points arguable on their merits, the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 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.
