674 Fed.Appx. 432 (5th Cir. 2017), 16-50876, United States v. Jones

• Citation: 674 Fed.Appx. 432
• Opinion Judge: PER CURIAM
• Party Name: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. WILLIAM HARRIS JONES, Defendant-Appellant
• Attorney: For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX. WILLIAM HARRIS JONES, Defendant - Appellant, Pro se, Big Spring, TX.
• Judge Panel: Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
• Case Date: January 30, 2017
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 432

674 Fed.Appx. 432 (5th Cir. 2017)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WILLIAM HARRIS JONES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50876

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

January 30, 2017

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Please Refer Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. USDC No. 7:14-CR-90-1.

For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX.

WILLIAM HARRIS JONES, Defendant - Appellant, Pro se, Big Spring, TX.

Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:^[*]

William Harris Jones, federal prisoner # 28772-298, who was convicted of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He seeks to appeal from the district court's denial of his motion " to reverse 'void' federal judgment to correct a 'manifest injustice,'" which the district court construed as a petition for a writ of coram nobis.

Jones remains in custody. Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that the writ of coram nobis is not available to him. See United States v. Hatten, 167 F.3d 884, 887 n.6 (5th Cir. 1999).

Because the appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous, Jones's motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

---

Notes:

^[*]Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

---