Kamal K. PATEL, Petitioner-Appellant v. Wayne PHILLIPS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, 540 F. App'x 417

PER CURIAM: Kamal K. Patel, federal prisoner # 56496-080, appeals from the order of the district court denying his petition for habe-as corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In the district court, Patel argued that his conviction and sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). On appeal, he argues that he should not have been sentenced as an armed career criminal, pursuant to Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122, 129 S.Ct. 687, 172 L.Ed.2d 484 (2009), and Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L.Ed.2d 490 (2008).

We have nothing to consider in this appeal. Patel raises the Chambers/Begay argument for the first time on appeal, and we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999). Moreover, by failing to raise the Apprendi issue in his appellate brief, Patel has abandoned it. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir.1994). Patel’s appeal is frivolous. The current § 2241 petition was not Patel’s first attempt to obtain relief pursuant to Apprendi or its progeny, United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and he has otherwise attempted to challenge his conviction on collateral review on several occasions. See In re Patel, No. 11-50947, 1-2 (5th Cir. Feb. 28, 2012) (unpublished order denying authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion); In re Patel, No. 05-50674, 1-2 (5th Cir. July 19, 2005) (unpublished order denying authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion based on Booker); Patel v. Morris, 37 Fed.Appx. 428, 429-32 (10th Cir.2002) (affirming order denying relief under § 2241 based on Apprendi); In re Patel, No. 00-50980 (5th Cir.

Nov. 7, 2000) (unpublished order denying authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion based on Apprendi). Patel is WARNED that frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. APPEAL DISMISSED, see 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 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R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.