
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sunday ADEOSHUN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-31216
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 8, 2007.
    Michael Edward Mcmahon, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Sunday Adeoshun, Haskell, TX, pro se.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Sunday Adeoshun, a federal prisoner, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. The district court denied Adeoshun’s motion to appeal IFP and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for IFP status, Adeoshun is challenging that certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Adeoshun’s motion addresses only his asserted indigent status and does not brief any argument regarding the district court’s determination that his appeal was not taken in good faith. Failure to identify an error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993).

Adeoshun has not shown that the district court’s determination that his appeal is not taken in good faith is incorrect. The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Accordingly, the request for IFP status is denied, and the appeal is dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Adeoshun that the filing of frivolous pleadings of any kind may result in 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.

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     