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

No. 20

- 11074 Summary Calendar

**In the Matter of: William Paul Burch** 

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

Appellant **,**

versus

**America’s Servicing Company,**

Appellee

**.**

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

- CV

- 1048

Before **Stewart, Haynes,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

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

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cu**  **it R**  **ule** 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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 November 12, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-11074 Document: 00516091095 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2021No. 20

- 11074

2 William Paul Burch appeals the district court’s dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee for his appeal in the district court of a judgment of the bankruptcy court for the Northern District of Texas. Burch has filed a
motion to remand this matter to th e district court, stating that he is now able to pay the filing fee. 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 Appellat e Procedure 12.1, upon which Burch relies, Burch’s motion for remand is not well taken and is thus
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 file an out of time reply to the opposition to remand is likewise denied.

The motion for remand additionally acknowledges that Burch does

not currently meet the financial eligibility requirements to proceed IFP in this appeal. See **Fed. R. App. P.** 24(a); 28 U.S.C . § 1915(a)(1); Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982); see also Burch v. Freedom Mortg. Corp. (In re Burch) , 835 F. App’x 741, 749 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied , 2021 WL 4508733 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2021) ( No. 21

- 5069). Moreover, Burch does not
cha llenge the district court’s determination that he failed to pay the filing fee in that court, which was the only ruling Burch has appealed. Burch therefore
fails show a nonfrivolous issue for appeal or financial eligibility to proceed IFP; accordingly, th e motion to proceed IFP is denied and the appeal is
dismissed as frivolous

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2; § 1915

. Burch w as previously warned that if he continued to file frivolous appeals and motions in this court , this court would issue sanctions , and he

was warned to withdraw any pending frivolous appeals

. Burch v. Freedom Mortg. Corp. , 850 F. App’x 292, 294 (5th Cir. 2021); Burch , 835 F. App’x at

749. Because this court has previously warned of sanctions and the instant appeal is frivolous, we determine th at sanctions are warranted. See Coghlan v. Starkey , 852 F.2d 806, 808 (5th Cir. 1988)

. Burch is her eby ordered to pay Case: 20-11074 Document: 00516091095 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2021No. 20

- 11074

3 $100.00 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 is paid in full. Burch is again warned that additional frivolous or abusive filings in this court, the district court, or the bankruptcy court will result in the imposit ion of further sanctions. He is again admonished to review any pending appeals and to withdraw any appeals that are frivolous.
**MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS** 
**FRIVOLOUS ; SANCTION IMPOSED**  **; ADDITIONAL**
**SANCTION WARNING ISSUED**

**.** Case: 20-11074 Document: 00516091095 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/12/2021