# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10850 Summary Calendar

**In the Matter of W**  **i lliam Paul Burch** 

Debtor **,**
**William Paul Burch,**

Appellant **,**

versus

**Bank of America, N.A.,**

Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20

- CV

- 793

Before **Smith, Higginson,** and **Willett,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 5, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10850 Document: 00516308745 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2022No. 20

- 10850

2 William Paul Burch appeal s from the district court’s denial of his motion for “reconsideration” of his in forma pauperis ( **IFP** ) status, which
f

ollowed t he district court ’ s dismissal, for failure to pay the filing fee, of his appeal of a judgment of the bankruptcy court for the Northern District of

Texas

. Burch has filed a motion to remand the matter to the district court, stating that he is now able to pay the filing fee because his financ ial situation has improved . Because the record does not establish that the district court issued a statement or indicative ruling in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1, upon which Burch relies, his motion for remand is denied. See **Fed. R. App.**

**P**

. 12.1; **Fed. R. Civ. P** . 62.1; cf. Moore v. Tangipahoa Par. Sch. Bd. , 836 F.3d 503, 504 (5th Cir. 2016). Burch’s motion to withdraw the motion to remand
is also denied.
Additionally, Burch moves to proc e ed **IFP** on appeal. To proceed

**IFP** , a litigant must be economically eligible, and his appeal must not be
frivolous. Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). If the appeal is frivolous, this court will dismiss it. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); **5 th**  **Cir. R. 42.2.**
Even before Burch’s concessions regarding his improved financial situation, we held that Burch was not financially eligible to proceed **IFP** on appeal. See Burch v. Freedom Mortg. Corp. ( Matter of Burch ), 835 F. App’x 741, 749 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 253 (2021), rehearing denied , No. 21

- 5069, 2021 WL 5763451 (U.S. Dec. 6, 2021). Burch’s conclusional assertions, without cogent legal argument, fail to establish the required existence of a
nonf rivolous issue for appeal. See Carson , 689 F.2d at 586. Accordingly, the motion to proceed **IFP** is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) ; **5th Cir. R** . 42.2. Case: 20-10850 Document: 00516308745 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2022No. 20

- 10850

3 In prior instances, we have issued sanctions warnings and directed Burch to review his pending appeals and withdraw any that were frivolous. See, e.g. , Burch v. Freedom Mortg. Corp. , 850 F. App’x 292, 294 (5th Cir. 2021); Matter of Burch , 835 F. App’x at 749. Because Burch failed to heed our warnings, we previously impos ed monetary sanctions. Burch v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ( Matter of Burch ), No. 20

- 11171, 2022 WL 212836, *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 24, 2022) (unpublished) ($250 sanction); Burch v. America’s Servicing Company (Matter of Burc h ), No. 20

- 11074, 2021 WL 5286 563, *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 12, 2021) (unpublished) ($100 sanction).
Burch, who has paid the above

- mentioned monetary sanctions, has repeatedly ignored our admonitions, and we conclude that an additional monetary sanction is warranted. Burch is hereby ordered t o pay $500.00 to
the clerk of this court

. The clerk of this court and the clerks of all courts subject to the jurisdiction of this court are directed to return to Burch unfiled any submissions he should make until the sanction imposed in this matter is pai d in full.
We again warn Burch that additional frivolous or abusive filings in this court, the district court, or the bankruptcy court will result in the imposition
of further sanctions

. Burch is once again admonished to review any pending appeals and to w ithdraw any that are frivolous.
**MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION IMPOSED; ADDITIONAL** 
**SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.** Case: 20-10850 Document: 00516308745 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2022