U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2019

United States v. Daniel Arriaga, III

United States v. Daniel Arriaga, III
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided March 14, 2019

United States v. Daniel Arriaga, III

Opinion

Case: 18-50926 Document: 00514874066 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 18-50926 FILED March 14, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DANIEL ARRIAGA, III, also known as Daniel Arriaga, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:10-CR-789-1

Before DENNIS, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Daniel Arriaga, III, federal prisoner # 65810-280, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion for writ time to be allocated to his federal sentence, arguing that his federal sentence should be credited for the time he spent in federal custody on a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. The district court dismissed the motion, stating that Arriaga was not entitled to credit because he had been

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-50926 Document: 00514874066 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2019

No. 18-50926 sentenced to consecutive sentences and had already received state credit. The district court denied Arriaga leave to proceed IFP on appeal and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

By moving to proceed IFP on appeal, Arriaga challenges the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). As he has not shown he can raise a nonfrivolous issue regarding the denial of his motion, Arriaga’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED and his appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.