* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20433

IN RE: GENERAL HOMES CORP.,

Debtor;

NATHAN NAHMIAS,

Appellant,

versus

GENERAL HOMES CORP. and

FGMC, INC.,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(4:94-CV-16)

April 1, 1996

Before WIENER, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Nathan Nahmias, a holder of unsecured bonds issued by the

debtor, General Homes Corp., appeals the district court's dismissal

of the appeal of the bankruptcy court's order confirming a plan of

reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

This bankruptcy case began by involuntary petition on July 10,

1990. Following appropriate proceedings, the bankruptcy court2

confirmed a reorganization plan in October of 1991. The Official

Committee of Unsecured Creditors appe aled this order to the

district court. The bankruptcy court denied a motion to stay

execution of the plan pending appeal, and no such request was made

in the district court.

Debtor GHC filed a motion to dismiss the bankrup tcy appeal.

The district court did not rule on the motion to dismiss and took

the appeal under advisement. On March 6, 1995, GHC filed a renewed

motion to dismiss the appeal, contending that the appeal should be

dismissed as moot because o f substantial completion of the

reorganization approved by the bankruptcy court. The unsecured

credito rs' committee did not oppose this motion. However,

following this renewed motion, appellant Nahmias filed a response

a nd two amended responses objecting to dismissal of the appeal,

making his first appearance in the proceedings. On April 11, 1995,

the district court denied GHC's motion to dismiss.

On April 24, 1995, GHC filed a motion asking the district

court to reconsider its order denying the motion to dismiss.

Nahmi as did not object to the motion to reconsider. On May 5,

1995, t he district court granted GHC's motion and dismissed the

appeal as moot. Nahmias timely filed this appeal. GHC filed a

motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, contending that Nahmias

did not have standing to appeal. GHC also filed a request for

damages under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,

contending that Nahmias's appeal was frivolous. GHC's motions were3

carried with the case.

The substance of this appeal by Nahmias is that the district

court's order dismissing the bankruptcy appeal as moot was error.

On appeal, Nahmias offers numerous reasons why this appeal should

not have been dismissed as moot. However, Nahmias did not present

these arguments to the district court. In his responses filed in

the district court, Nahmias objected to dismissal of the appeal

on the grounds that the plans o f reorganization in the

above-referenced cases were confirmed contrary to the

provi s ions of the United States Bankruptcy Code and

dismissal of the appeal will result in rendering [his]

debentures valueless, in violation of the applicable

provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Nahmias offered no more specific objection.

"`[T]o be preserved, an argument must be pressed, and not

merely intimated.' In short, the argument must be raised to such

a degree that the trial court may rule on it . . . ." I n re

Fairchild Aircraft Corp.

, 6 F.3d 1119, 1128 (5th Cir. 1993)

(citations omi tted). Nahmias's general objections to the

reorga nization plan clearly failed to address whether the

bankruptcy appeal had become moot. Therefore, his arguments to

this court that the appeal should not have been considered moot

were not properly preserved for review.

As a general rule, this court will not address arguments

presented for the first time on appeal, and Nahmias has offered no

reason to make exception in the present case. Because Nahmias did

not properly preserve his arguments on the substance of this4

appeal, he has presented to this court no "legal points arguable on

thei r merits." H oward v. King

, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983) (quoting Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396,

18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967)).

ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. S ee Local

Rule 42.2

. We caution Nahmias that any additional frivolous

appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellees' motion to dismiss this

appeal for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellees' request for damages and

single or double costs under Fed. R. App. P. 38 is DENIED.