IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40218
Summary Calendar
WILLIAM ROBERT PARKER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
PARDONS & PAROLE DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(6:95-CV-264)
_________________________________________________________________
October 3, 1996
Before KING, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Robert Parker, Texas inmate #325353, appeals the
denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging the revocation
of his parole and continued confinement in prison. He raises the
following issues on appeal: 1) the evidence was insufficient to
justify revocation of his parole; 2) his waiver of the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
preliminary revocation hearing was coerced; 3) he was denied
counsel when he pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge arising
from the same operative facts as the basis for the revocation of
his parole; 4) due process was violated by the purported reliance
on the misdemeanor conviction to revoke his parole; 5) revocation
of parole was illegal because Parker had not been convicted of a
subsequent felony; 6) Parker’s detention prior to the revocation
hearing violated due process; 7) the district court erred in its
findings of fact and conclusions of law; 8) Parker’s parole
revocation and continued confinement violate double jeopardy;
9) Parker’s parole revocation and continued confinement are ex
post facto violations; and 10) the district court and the
respondent erred by viewing Parker’s thirteen grounds as raising
only nine grounds.
We have carefully reviewed the arguments and the appellate
record. For essentially the same reasons adopted by the district
court in its order of dismissal, we conclude Parker has failed to
raise a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Parker v. Director,
TDCJ-PD, No. 6:95cv264 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 1996). The appeal is
without arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. 5th Cir.
R. 42.2. The appeal is DISMISSED.
Parker has been warned by this court of the consequences of
bringing frivolous appeals. See Parker v. Highland Ins., No. 96-
20118 (5th Cir. Apr. 16, 1996) (unpublished). The warning has
gone unheeded. Accordingly, Parker is BARRED from filing any pro
2
se, in forma pauperis (IFP), civil appeal in this court, or any
pro se, IFP, initial civil pleading in any court which is subject
to this court’s jurisdiction, without the advance written
permission of a judge of the forum court; the clerk of this court
and the clerks of all federal district courts in this Circuit are
directed to return to Parker, unfiled, any attempted submission
inconsistent with this bar.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.
3