IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50646
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICHARD KIEPFER, M.D.,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(SA-92-CV-357)
- - - - - - - - - -
March 7, 1997
Before Wisdom, King, and Smith, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this appeal, Kiepfer contends that (1) the consent to
search was obtained by fraud; (2) the Government’s submitting of
a proposed amended order on remand and his purported inability to
respond violated his due process; and (3) remand “should be [for]
a broad hearing on the issues approximating a de novo hearing”.
Consent to search
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-50646
- 2 -
The scope of our review on appeal following remand is
limited. The only issue for consideration is “whether the court
below reached its final decree in due pursuance of our previous
opinion and mandate”.1 Because Kiepfer failed to amend his
notice of appeal following the district court’s denial of his
Rule 59(e) motion, this court has jurisdiction over only the
issues raised by the district court’s order on remand and not
over any of the issues arising from the denial of Kiepfer's Rule
59(e) motion.2
Kiepfer’s argument that the consent to search was obtained
by fraud, having been raised in his Rule 59(e) motion, as well as
in his first appeal, is not subject to review by this court.3
Due Process
On appeal, Kiepfer contends for the first time that the
Government’s submitting of a proposed amended order when he was
unable to respond violated his due process rights, thereby
invalidating the order on remand. This argument is totally
without merit. Dr. Kiepfer was properly served with the proposed
amended order, and the district court was free to adopt the
proposed findings.4
1
Burroughs v. FFP Operating Partners, L.P., 70 F.3d 31,
33 (5th Cir. 1995).
2
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2), (a)(4)(C), Reeves v. Collins,
27 F.3d 174, 177 (5th Cir. 1994).
3
See Reeves, 27 F.3d at 177, Burroughs, 70 F.3d at 33.
4
Studiengeselllschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak Co., 616
No. 96-50646
- 3 -
Scope of review on remand
Kiepfer argues that if the case is remanded again, “remand
should provide for a broad relatively unlimited hearing of a de
novo nature.” Because the appeal is dismissed as frivolous, this
issue is moot.
Order on remand
Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(4) requires that the argument on
appeal contain the “contentions of the appellant on the issues
presented, and the reason therefor, with citations to the
authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on.”
Issues not adequately argued in the body of the brief are deemed
abandoned on appeal.5
In this appeal Kiepfer does not assign any specific error to
the district court’s order on remand, does not cite to the
record, and does not cite any authority in support of his
position. He concludes merely that the “computer records and
defendant’s evidence . . . show that many of the deficiencies
sustained against [him] were sustained in error”. Because
Kiepfer does not present any intelligible arguments regarding the
district court's order on remand, his argument is deemed
abandoned. This appeal, being entirely without merit, is
dismissed.6
F.2d 1315, 1323 (5th Cir.) cert. denied 449 U.S. 1014 (1980).
5
L & A Contracting v. S. Concrete Servs., 17 F.3d 106
(5th Cir. 1994).
6
5th Cir. R. 42.2.
No. 96-50646
- 4 -
APPEAL DISMISSED