IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40526
Conference Calendar
__________________
RUBEN S. FLORES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA-C-93-150
- - - - - - - - - -
April 18, 1996
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ruben S. Flores appeals from the district court's stay
ruling, pending appeal, of his successive postjudgment motions in
an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 42
U.S.C. § 2000e. Flores argues that the district court erred in
denying his motion for extension of time for service in light of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and (i). He argues that the district court
erred in not ruling on his postjudgment motions and in finding
that the Attorney General had not been served. Flores's notice
of appeal was filed almost six months after the district court's
last ruling, the refusal to rule on the postjudgment motions
during the pendency of the appeal.
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 95-40526
-2-
This court has does not jurisdiction because either the
notice of appeal is too late or the refusal order is
unappealable. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(60 days to appeal in
case in which the U.S. Government agency is a party); Latham v.
Wells Fargo Bank, 987 F.2d 1199, 1204 (5th Cir. 1993)(Any Rule
60(b) motion raising substantially similar grounds as urged or as
could have been urged in an earlier motion is successive, and any
appeal from the denial of such motion is not reviewable.).
Counsel for Flores is doing no more than reurging the same
issue he lost initially, on the first set of postjudgment
motions, and on the first appeal. This appeal is without
arguable merit and thus frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Counsel is hereby warned that pursuing
frivolous appeals invites sanctions. See United States v.
Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 283
(1994).
DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.