Filed: Jul. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-10370 Summary Calendar In The Matter Of: ROY LATIMER Debtor, - BEVERLY LATIMER, Appellant, ROY LATIMER, Appellant, versus MELLON MORTGAGE COMPANY, Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CV-193-A - - - - - - - - - - June 18, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal filed
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-10370 Summary Calendar In The Matter Of: ROY LATIMER Debtor, - BEVERLY LATIMER, Appellant, ROY LATIMER, Appellant, versus MELLON MORTGAGE COMPANY, Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CV-193-A - - - - - - - - - - June 18, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal filed ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-10370
Summary Calendar
In The Matter Of: ROY LATIMER
Debtor,
---------------------------
BEVERLY LATIMER,
Appellant,
ROY LATIMER,
Appellant,
versus
MELLON MORTGAGE COMPANY,
Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:95-CV-193-A
- - - - - - - - - -
June 18, 1996
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal filed by
Roy and Beverly Latimer is DENIED. The appeal is frivolous and
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-10370
- 2 -
it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. See also Brinkmann v.
Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987). We caution the Latimers that any additional frivolous
appeals filed by them or on their behalf will invite the
imposition of sanctions. The Latimers are further cautioned to
review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise
arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously
decided by this court.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.