* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-50335

Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: ELWOOD CLUCK,

Debtor.

-------------------------

ELWOOD CLUCK; KRISTINE A. CLUCK,

Appellants,

VERSUS

RANDOLPH N. OSHEROW, Trustee;

THOMAS WILLIAM MCKENZIE,

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

September 20, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

On April 26, 1996, Elwood Cluck, pro se as appellant signed

and filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth C ircuit from the final order and judgment of the

Unite d States District Court for the Western District of Texas,2

filed April 16, 1996. The district court judgment affirmed the

order of the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas

dated September 12, 1995, which awarded attorney’s fees and costs

to Thomas McKenzie as attorney for Ra ndolph N. Osherow, Trustee.

The notice of appeal also named Kristine A. Cluck as a pro se

appellant but was not signed by her. We treat her notice of appeal

as sufficient under FRAP 3(c). However, the appellants’ brief

filed in this appeal was signed only by Elwood Cluck; neither

Kristine A. Cluck nor any attorney purporting to act for her signed

the brief. Local Rule 34.2 of this Court requires that all briefs

be signed by each pro se party or by at least o ne attorney of

record for each party. Since the appellants’ brief in this appeal

was not signed by Kristine A. Cluck nor by any attorney of record

for Kristine A. Cluck, we deem the appeal of Kristine A. Cluck to

be abandoned for failure to file a brief and we, therefore, dismiss

the appeal of Kristine A. Cluck.

We have carefully reviewed the brief of appellant Elwood

Cluck, the brief of appellee, the reply brief, the record excerpts

and relevant portions of the record itself. The only issue in this

appeal is whe ther the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in

awarding attorney’s fees and costs per its order of September 12,

1995. Awards of attorney’s fees and costs are reviewable under an

abuse of discretion standard. In Re Evangeline Refining Co. , 890

F.2d 1312, 1322 (5th Cir. 1989); First Colonial Corp. v. American

Benefit Life Ins. Co.

, 544 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied

431 U.S. 904. Findings of fact, whether based on oral or3

documentary evidence, shall not be set asid e unless clearly

erroneous and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the

bankruptcy court to judge the credibility of witnesses. I n Re

Bradley

, 960 F.2d 502, 506 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied

, 507 U.S.

971 (1993 ). For the reasons stated by the district court in its

separate order filed under date of April 16, 1996, we affirm the

judgment of the district court which affirms the order of the

bankruptcy court awarding attorney’s fees and costs.

This appeal is one of 24 separate appeals which appellant

Elwood Cluck has filed in this Court, all arising out of the same

bankruptcy proceeding. This Court has previously warned Cluck that

frivolous appeals could result in the imposition of sanctio ns.

Cluck v. Osherow

, Nos. 95-50611, 95-50613 and 95-50614 (5th Cir.

June 7, 1995) (unpublished). In another appeal, this Court imposed

sanctions in the amount of the appellee’s costs and attorney’s fees

incurred during appeal. Cluck v. Osherow , No. 95-50797 (5th Cir.

June 21, 1996) (unpublished). We find the instant appeal is

frivolous. The result is obvious and the arguments of error are

wholly without merit. Coghlan v. Starkey , 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th

Cir. 1988); see also Clark v. Green

, 814 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir.

1987) (a frivolous appeal is one in which the clai m advanced is

unreasonable or is not brought with reasonabl y good faith belief

that it is justif ied). Given the prior sanction warning and the

prior imposition of sanctions and Cluck’s continued prosecution of

this frivolous appeal, we now impose sanctions in DOUBLE the amount

o f the appellee’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred during t his4

appeal. Accordingly, the appellee is directed to submit to this

court its application for costs and attorney’s fees incurred during

this appeal, together with supporting documents. We direct the

clerk to issue the mandate immediately and not accept any filing of

a motion for rehearing from Cluck. We further direct the clerk to

amend the mandate as to the final certification of double costs and

attorney’s fees as set by the sanctions herein. See Fed. R. App.

P. 39(d) and 41.

Finally, Cluck is barred from filing any pro se civil appeal

in this Court, or any pro se initial civil pleading in any court

which is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction, without the advance

written permission of a judge of the forum court or of this Court;

the clerk of this Court and the cle rks of all federal district

courts in this Circuit are directed to return to Cluck, unfiled,

any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRME D

. SANCTIONS

IMPOSED.