
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-1156
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    FILED July 20, 2016
    Matthew T. Kirsch, James C. Murphy, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Charles Lewis, Big Spring, TX, Pro Se.
    Before HARTZ, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Michael R. Murphy, Circuit Judge

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The court therefore orders the case submitted without oral argument.

On April 12, 2016, Charles Lewis filed two motions with -the United States District Court for the District of Colorado: a motion requesting a special discovery hearing and a motion to appoint counsel. The district court denied both, concluding there was “nothing filed or pending that would require legal counsel or discovery.” Proceeding pro se, Lewis then brought this appeal.

We have reviewed the record, Lewis’s appellate brief, and the applicable law and conclude the district court did not err in denying Lewis’s motions. Accordingly, the district court’s order denying Lewis’s Motion to Appoint Adequate Counsel to Petition the Supreme Court for Writ of Habe-as Corpus and his Motion Requesting Special Discovery Hearing to Determine if the Level of Court Appointed Representation Was Adequate, is affirmed for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s order dated April 20, 2016.

We also conclude Lewis’s appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, Lewis’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied and he is reminded of his obligation to immediately remit any unpaid balance of the appellate filing fee. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     