UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 95-10199
Summary Calendar
_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NORMAN C. LOGGINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:91 CV 1217 D c/w 3:88 CR 083 D)
_________________________________________________________________
August 10, 1995
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Loggins pleaded guilty to three counts of mail
fraud in 1988 and took no direct appeal. Instead, he pursued two
federal habeas corpus petitions filed in January 1989 and April
1991. This court affirmed the dismissal of the first petition and
dismissed the appeal of denial of relief on the second petition as
frivolous.
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no
precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled
principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
Before us now is Loggins's "appeal" from the district
court's order responding to a letter Loggins wrote on February 11,
1995, seeking reversal of the district court's previous denials of
relief. Loggins continues to raise issues that should have been
pursued on direct appeal or in his first habeas petition. We agree
with the district court's conclusion that he had no authority to
revisit Loggins's case, inasmuch as the relief Loggins seeks is
unavailable through Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b)(6). Loggins makes no
facts or assertions in this "appeal" that would cause us to
reconsider the propriety of our earlier dismissal of his appeal or
the district court's recent action.
Loggins is warned that even though he proceeds pro se, he
is and was bound by the applicable federal law and rules of
procedure. Should he raise any more frivolous arguments before
this court, he will be sanctioned.
Appeal DISMISSED as frivolous. See Fifth Circuit Local
Rule 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
2