
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert L. HEDRICK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-40285
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 3, 2016.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert L. Hedrick, Petersburg, VA, pro se.
    Before GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

A jury found Robert L. Hedrick, federal prisoner # 94886-279, guilty of one count of attempted sexual exploitation of children, one count of transfer of obscene material to a minor, two counts of distribution of child pornography, and one count of possession of child pornography; he was sentenced to 360 months in prison, to be followed by supervised release for life. While his direct appeal was pending, Hed-rick filed a motion for contempt, arguing that the Government failed to comply with a previously-issued district court order. The district court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction due to the pending appeal. After we affirmed Hedrick’s conviction and sentence, he filed in the district court a motion for the enforcement of judicial compliance (motion for enforcement), in which he argued that the district court should enforce its own rules and that it erred by failing to conduct a hearing on his motion for contempt. Now, Hedrick moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion for contempt and motion for enforcement.

We previously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Hedrick’s appeal from the denial of his motion for contempt, and, as such, the denial of that motion is not before the court. In addition, the motion for enforcement was meaningless, unauthorized, and without a jurisdictional basis. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994). Hedrick thus has not demonstrated a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, his motion to proceed IFP on appeal is denied, FED. R. APP. P. 24(a), and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n. 24 (5th Cir.1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Hedrick has a history of filing pleadings in the district court and this court raising fantastic claims centering on a wide-ranging conspiracy involving a drug cartel, federal prosecutors, law enforcement, and a federal judge arising out of an effort to frame him on child pornography charges and murder him so that the cartel could import contraband into the country using Hedrick’s cargo facility. Hedrick is CAUTIONED that any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings may invite the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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.
     