USA v. Eli Mungia, No. 18-11354 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-11354 Document: 00515101497 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-11354 FILED September 3, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ELI TREVINO MUNGIA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:09-CV-97 USDC No. 5:95-CR-17-1 Before DENNIS, HAYNES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Eli Trevino Mungia, federal prisoner # 26371-077, filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) motion filed in his criminal proceedings, in which he argued that the judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was void based upon the ineffective assistance of his federal habeas counsel. The district court denied his Rule 60(b) motion and denied him a certificate of 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-11354 Document: 00515101497 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2019 No. 18-11354 appealability (COA). Mungia moves for a COA and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. To the extent that Mungia challenges the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion in the context of his criminal proceedings, he is appealing from a “meaningless, unauthorized” motion that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider. United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994). Because an appeal on this ground lacks arguable merit, it is DISMISSED, see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2, and a COA is DENIED as unnecessary, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). To the extent that the district court’s denial of a COA implicates Mungia’s prior civil postconviction proceedings and Mungia seeks a COA to appeal the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion in that context, he has not made the requisite showing for a COA. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 & n.5 (2005); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Accordingly, a COA is DENIED. Mungia’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is also DENIED. Mungia has previously been warned that frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings would invite the imposition of sanctions. See United States v. Mungia, No. 18-10004 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2018) (unpublished); In re Mungia, No. 16-10307 (5th Cir. June 21, 2016) (unpublished). Mungia is again WARNED that the continued filing of frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive attempts to challenge his convictions and sentences in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will invite the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and possibly denial of access to the judicial system. 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.
