Yahvah v. Cueliar

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: June 5, 2003
• Docket: 02-21226
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 5, 2003 ____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III No. 02-21226 Clerk Summary Calendar ____________________

YAHVAH, in and through Yahvah’s Kingdom People via ambassadors Claude Hugh Lloyd The Second and Cassondra Jean Lloyd,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HENRY CUELIAR, Texas Secretary of State; RICK PERRY, Texas Governor; CLARENCE JAMES, Harris County Appraisal Review Board; JIM ROBINSON, Harris County Appraisal District; PETE ALFARO, Baytown Mayor; DON HENDRIX, Crosby Independent School District Superintendent; BARBARA SULTIS, Goose Creek Independent School District Superintendent, All others of like kind; CITY OF BAYTOWN,

Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-02-CV-87) _________________________________________________________________

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Claude Hugh Lloyd and Cassondra Jean Lloyd seek a declaratory

judgment that the “taxing entities” of the United States and Texas

have no jurisdiction over them. This court must examine the basis

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. of its jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary. E.g., Copling v.

Container Store, Inc., 174 F.3d 590, 594 (5th Cir. 1999). The

Lloyds did not file a timely notice of appeal from the final

judgment dismissing their action for lack of jurisdiction.

Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review that judgment. E.g.

Dison v. Whitley, 20 F.3d 185, 186 (5th Cir. 1994).

The Lloyds did timely file a notice of appeal from the order

striking their pleading entitled, “Final order of formal

acknowledgment from United States District Court”. Because the

Lloyds have not identified any error in that order, however, they

have abandoned that appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The appeal is

without arguable merit and, therefore, is DISMISSED as frivolous.

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. (The “Demand to compel court to sign final order” is

DENIED.)

The Lloyds are warned that filing future frivolous complaints

or appeals will result in the imposition of sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED