* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41381

Summary Calendar

 

BRIAN BLAINE REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACHIEVEMENT ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CV-80

- - - - - - - - - -

August 4, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Brian Blaine Reynolds appeals the district court’s dismissal

of his lawsuit for failure to state a claim against American

Academy Achievement, Inc. and various other defendants (“the

Academy”), alleging that the Academy illegally withheld taxes

from his monthly retirement checks. Reynolds raised precisely

the same claim in two prior lawsuits against the Academy in this

circuit, both of which were dismissed. His attempt to appeal the

second of these district-court dismissals was deemed frivolous by
No. 97-41381

-2-

this court and was dismissed as such. See Reynolds v. American

Academy Achievement, Inc., 97-10726 (5th Cir. March 13, 1998)

(unpublished). In dismissing that appeal as frivolous, this

court cautioned Reynolds that the filing of any further frivolous

appeals would invite sanctions. See id.

Nevertheless, Reynolds has failed to raise any meritorious

arguments challenging the district court’s determination that his

present claims are precluded by the district courts’ adverse

rulings in his prior lawsuits. He contends that his claims are

new; that the second of his prior lawsuits is not a bar to the

instant case because it was never dismissed; and that the

district court’s failure to specifically address his contention

that Walter Scott’s affidavit was false requires reversal. His

arguments are incorrect on the face of the record. Reynolds’

argument that the IRS documents he submitted for the first time

on appeal require reversal is likewise unavailing; this court

will not consider evidence not first presented to the district

court. See Williams v. CIGNA Financial Advisors, Inc., 56 F.3d

656, 661 (5th Cir. 1995).

The instant appeal is wholly without merit and is thus

frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1985). 

Because it is frivolous, his appeal is DISMISSED.

The Academy has filed motions to supplement the record and

for sanctions. Because Reynolds’ appeal is frivolous and given

his litigious past and failure to heed this court’s prior
No. 97-41381

-3-

warnings, the Academy’s motions are GRANTED. Reynolds is ORDERED 

to pay the Academy’s attorney fees in the amount of $9,771 and

$362 in double costs. Fed. R. App. P. 38. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Reynolds is barred from filing

any pro se civil appeal in this court, or any 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. The clerk of this court and the clerk of all

federal courts in this circuit are directed to return to

Reynolds, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with

this bar.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS GRANTED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.