
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Joseph DERROW, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09^10517
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 22, 2009.
    Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tyler, TX, John Malcolm Bales, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lufkin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Joseph Derrow, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Michael Joseph Derrow, federal prisoner # 03199-286, seeks leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Derrow also moves for the appointment of counsel. Derrow previously filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, challenging his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute crack cocaine and possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine. His § 2255 motion was denied, and his motion for a certificate of appeala-bility was denied by this court.

In order to obtain leave to proceed IFP, Derrow must show that he is a pauper, and he must raise a nonfrivolous issue. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir.1986). Derrow argues that his sentence is unconstitutional under Apprendi, his counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the issue on appeal, and the district court erroneously denied his motion. Derrow’s motion filed in the district coui't was an unauthorized motion which the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994). Derrow’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983).

Accordingly, Derrow’s request for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. His motion for appointment of counsel is also DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     