PER CURIAM: . Adolph Bryant, Jr., Mississippi prisoner # 84075, was convicted in 1993 of possession of marijuana and cocaine with intent to deliver arising out of two drug arrests. He filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit challenging the computation of his discharge and parole eligibility dates. The district court granted a motion for
summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissed Bryant’s suit as frivolous, and denied Bryant leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith. Bryant seeks leave from this court to proceed IFP. By doing so, he challenges the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 203 (5th Cir.1997). Bryant has failed to demonstrate the existence of a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Although Bryant may be unable to afford the filing fee, he must nevertheless raise a nonfrivolous issue. See id.
He has not shown any constitutional violations regarding his claims related to his discharge and parole dates. He likewise has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the respondent’s untimely
summary judgment motion. See, e.g., Enlow v. Tishomingo County, Miss., 962 F.2d 501, 507 (5th Cir.1992). Thus, he is not entitled to proceed IFP on appeal. As it is plain that any appeal would be frivolous, we dismiss the appeal sua sponte pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n. 24. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the dismissal by the district court of Bryant’s suit each counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 108 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996).
Bryant is cautioned that he has now accumulated two strikes and that if he accumulates three strikes he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED; IFP MOTION DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.