
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Douglas Ray DUNKINS, Jr., also known as Little Doug, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-11007
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 17, 2011.
    Douglas Ray Dunkins, Jr., FCI El Reno, El Reno, OK, pro se.
    Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Douglas Ray Dunkins, Jr., federal prisoner # 22619-077, was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and to manufacture cocaine base, to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute cocaine base; and of use of a firearm during and in relationship to a drug trafficking crime. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the conspiracy count and to a consecutive term of five years of imprisonment on the firearm count. See United States v. Fisher, 22 F.3d 574, 575-76 (5th Cir.1994).

In October 2008, the district court denied Dunkins’s “motion to unfiled the original application and affidavit for the search warrant” that had been filed in his criminal case in 1991 because it lacked the judicial officer’s signature. On appeal, this court found that this was a meaningless, unauthorized motion with no jurisdictional basis and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. United States v. Dunkins, No. 08-11033 (5th Cir. Dec. 4, 2008) (unpublished).

Dunkins seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) challenging the October 2008 ruling. Because neither the motion to unfiled nor the Rule 60(b) motion was filed in a habeas case, a COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir.2007).

In addition he moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The district court denied Dunkins’s IFP motion and certified that his appeal was not taken in good faith because he failed to present a nonfrivolous, arguable issue for appeal. By moving for leave to proceed IFP on appeal, Dunkins is challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(5). Dunkins has failed to show that his appeal from the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion 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 omitted). Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cm. R. 42.2. Dunkins is WARNED that filing further frivolous appeals will subject him to sanctions. 
      
       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.
     