
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby Benton LADD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50512
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 8, 2013.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Bobby Benton Ladd, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Bobby Benton Ladd, federal prisoner # 56834-180, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his post-judgment motions for recusal and for clarification of the record in a proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). By moving to proceed IFP, he is challenging 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); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(5).

Ladd argues that the district court did not follow the proper procedure in analyzing his § 3582 motion, but his brief does not address the merits of the motion for clarification or the motion for recusal. He fails to address the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith, or the district court’s reasons for its certification decision. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. Accordingly, his challenge to the certification decision is deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Ladd has not shown that his appeal involves “legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     