
    Darrell Wayne PHILLIPS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 06-10655
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 17, 2007.
    Darrell Wayne Phillips, Huntsville, TX, pro se.
    
      Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Darrell Wayne Phillips, Texas prisoner # 712352, moves for a certificate of appeal-ability (COA) and appointment of counsel to appeal the dismissal as successive of his third 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his involuntary manslaughter conviction. He argues that the district court should have applied the miscarriage of justice exception to the filing of successive applications.

Phillips, however, has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether ... the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). His COA motion is therefore DENIED.

Phillips’ COA motion is frivolous insofar as it lacks arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). In accordance with this court’s previous warning, Phillips is now ORDERED to pay a sanction in the amount of $100, payable to the clerk of this court. The clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts within this circuit are directed to refuse to file any pro se civil complaint or appeal by Phillips unless Phillips submits proof of satisfaction of this sanction. If Phillips attempts to file any further notices of appeal or original proceedings in this court without such proof, the clerk will docket them for administrative purposes only. Any other submissions which do not show proof that the sanction has been paid will be neither addressed nor acknowledged. Accordingly, the motions for a COA and appointment of counsel are DENIED and a SANCTION is IMPOSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     