## IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________



### m 01-20417 Summary Calendar

_______________



### D ALE 

### D. N ESFIELD



### ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS



### N ATIONAL 

### M ARITIME 

### U NION 

### ; N ICHOLAS 

### B ACHKO 

### C OMPANY



### , I NCORPORATED 

### ;

AND


### U NITED 

### S TATES 

### C OAST 

### G UARD



### ,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas



### m H-99-CV-2634

_________________________ November 29, 2001

Before J ONES , S MITH , and

E MILIO M. G ARZA , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * I.
Dale Nesfield, a pro se litigant, appeals the
dismissal of claims related to his job t e rmination by Nicholas Bachko Compa ny, Incorporated, that have already been rejected twice by
this court. S ee Nesfield v. United States Coast

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the cour t has
determined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except under the limited circum- stances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.2

Guard

, No. 00-20081 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 2000) (unpublished); Nesfield v. Nat’l Maritime

Union

, No. 99-21022 (5th Cir. June 16, 2000) (unpublished). On the second occasion, Nesfield was sanctioned and fined $100 for filing

a frivolous appeal

and was warned that “further frivolous appeals will result in the imposition of additional sanctions.” N esfield v. United States Coast Guard , at 2.

Despite this warning, Nesfield has chosen

to file yet another appeal raising the same issues. He now claims that his case sho uld be

recons i dered because the defendants’ actions
h ave allegedly triggered the onset of his diabetic condition.

The distri ct court held that Nesfield had
failed to provide sufficient evidence either to
reinstate his case or to begin a new lawsuit. A
dismissal under F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 12(b)(6) is subject to de novo review. Jackson v. City of

Beaumont Police Dep’t

, 95 8 F.2d 616, 618 (5th Cir. 1992). Denial of a F E D

. R. C IV

. P. 60
motion to set aside an earlier judgment is subject to re view only for abuse of discretion.
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljberg Enters., Inc.

, 38 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994).

We need not decide which standard is applicable here, because Nesfield has failed to
present sufficient evidence to justify overruling
the district court’s decision under either. The appeal is frivolous and must be dismissed. 5 T H C IR

. R. 42.2.

II.

“ This court is authorized to impose sanctions upon those wh o pursue frivolous appeal s,” and “[a] litigant’s p ro se status does

not preclude imposition of [such] san ctions.” Lyons v. Sheetz , 834 F.2d 493, 495-96 (5th
Cir. 1987). Because Nesfield has chosen to ignore this court’s warning to desist from filing
further frivolous appeals, it is ordered that he
be sanction ed wit h a fine of $100; he is ordered to remit payment to t he clerk of this

court within thirty days of the issuance of the
mandate in this case. Nesfield is once again warned, in the strongest p o ssible terms, that
further frivolous appeals can, and likely will,
result in the imposition of additional sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED; S A NCTIONS
IMPOSED.