
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julius DREW, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-51016.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 21, 2005.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Julius Drew, Sr, Austin, TX, pro se.
    Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Julius Drew, Sr., seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s order remanding the state court criminal actions against him following his filing of a notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Drew is effectively challenging the district court’s certification that he should not be granted IFP status because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a).

In state court, Drew pleaded guilty to charges of assault, recklessly causing bodily injury to an elderly person, and the unauthorized practice of law. As Drew did not allege that a specific federal law protects the criminal conduct with which he was charged, he has not shown that removal of the criminal actions was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. See City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824-28, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 16 L.Ed.2d 944 (1966). Furthermore, as Drew filed his notice of removal over a year after he pleaded guilty and was sentenced, his notice of removal was untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1).

Because Drew has failed to show that his case presented nonfrivolous issues for appeal, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Drew’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Drew’s remaining outstanding motions are also DENIED.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     