Yahvah v. Cueliar ( 2003 )

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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
2