Case: 19-2121    Document: 38     Page: 1    Filed: 06/08/2020




         NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.


   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

 LIPPERT COMPONENTS MANUFACTURING, INC.,
              Plaintiff-Appellee

                             v.

             RYAN MATTHEW FOUNTAIN,
               Sanctioned Party-Appellant

                             v.

   MOR/RYDE INTERNATIONAL INC., MOR/RYDE
                     INC.,
              Defendants-Appellees
             ______________________

                        2019-2121
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Northern District of Indiana in No. 3:14-cv-01999-JD-
 MGG, Judge Jon DeGuilio.
                 ______________________

                   Decided: June 8, 2020
                  ______________________

     JONATHAN FROEMEL, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Chi-
 cago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by
 ELIZABETH A. PETERS.
Case: 19-2121     Document: 38      Page: 2    Filed: 06/08/2020




2        LIPPERT COMPONENTS MFG.   v. MOR/RYDE INTERNATIONAL
                                                         INC.


       RYAN MATTHEW FOUNTAIN, Mishawaka, IN, argued pro
 se.

    JOSEPH ALBERT SALTIEL, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun
 LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for defendants-appellees.
                 ______________________

    Before PROST, Chief Judge, REYNA and TARANTO, Circuit
                           Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
      The United States District Court for the Northern Dis-
 trict of Indiana sanctioned Ryan M. Fountain under
 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and struck some of his filings from the
 record. See Lippert Components Mfg., Inc. v. Mor/Ryde
 Int’l Inc., No. 3:14-cv-1999, ECF No. 90 (N.D. Ind. May 20,
 2016);

145 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 23, 2017);
 

161 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 10, 2017). Mr. Fountain appeals
 these actions.
      Because we determine that the district court’s
 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanction award was not based upon clear
 errors of fact and was not an abuse of discretion, we affirm
 the award. We further determine that we lack jurisdiction
 to review the district court’s striking of the filings from the
 record, which does not constitute a sanction of Mr. Foun-
 tain. Accordingly, insofar as this appeal challenges the dis-
 trict court’s striking of filings from the record, we dismiss
 for lack of jurisdiction.
    AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND DISMISSED-IN-PART