Case: 24-40356 Document: 32-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 24-40356 FILED December 5, 2024 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Bobby B. Kirkendoll, Petitioner—Appellant, versus Warden, FCI Texarkana, Respondent—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:23-CV-142 ______________________________ Before Smith, Graves, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Bobby Kirkendoll, federal prisoner #12934-035, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) to appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 peti- tion challenging the validity of his federal prosecution under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”). The district court determined that Kir- kendoll was not entitled to relief because at the time the United States sought to commence prosecution, he was in the custody of the State of Louisiana, _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-40356 Document: 32-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2024

No. 24-40356

which was not a party to the IAD and thus was not subject to its terms; the court also determined that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. This court’s inquiry into whether an appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and there- fore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (cita- tion omitted).

Before this court, Kirkendoll asserts that his arguments arose under Article V(g) of the IAD, which does not include a reference to “party states” and thus applies to all states regardless whether they adopted the IAD. His contention is unsupported by the plain language of the IAD. See 18 U.S.C. App. 2 § 2, Arts. II, V. Kirkendoll does not make the requisite showing that he will present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, theis motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.