* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 7/23/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ JAMES EDWARD QUALLS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee,

______________________ DAVID L. SMITH, . Attorney-Appellant. Nos. 95-1385, 95-1459, 95-1489 (D.C. No. 91-Z-989) (D. Colorado)

_____________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

_____________________ Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

_____________________ After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore-2-

ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff James Edward Qualls and his attorney Davi d L. Smith brought four appeals, Nos. 95-1246, 95-1385, 95-1459, and 9 5-1489, asserting the district court committed a litany of errors inQualls v. Regional Transp. Dist. , D. Colo. No. 91-Z-989. We have summarized Mr. Smith's histo ry of misconduct before the United States District Court for the District of Co lorado, the Tenth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court inHoward v. Mail-Well Envelope Co. , 10th Cir. No. 95-1428, and we need not repeat that summary he re. A Tenth Circuit jurisdictional panel has (1) dismissed appeal No. 9 5-1246; (2) dismissed all of Mr. Smith's contentions in appeal No. 95-1385 excep t his challenge to the district court's order imposing sanctions on him; (3) consol idated appeal Nos. 95-1385, 95-1459, and 95-1489. Qualls v. Regional Transp. Dist. , Nos. 95-1246, 95-1385, 95-1459, & 95-1489 (10th Cir. Apr. 12, 1996). Beca use Mr. Qualls has settled his case on the district court level and voluntaril y dismissed his appeals, we conclude all of Mr. Smith's contentions on appeal a re moot except his challenge to the district court's May 15, 1995, order terminating his representation of Mr. Qualls in light of the fact a disciplinary panel ha d suspended him from practicing law before the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and his challenge to the many district court orders imposin g sanctions against Mr. Smith-3-

personally

. We have recently exercised jurisdiction over an att orney's appeal from a district court's order disqualifying her from repre senting a party, even though she brought her appeal after the parties had dismissed the underlying case with prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement, Johnson v. Board of County Comm'rs , 85 F.3d 489, 492 (10th Cir. 1996), and we see no reason to apply a different rule when, as in this case, the attorney- appellant challenges a sanction award assessed against him personally. Accordingly , provided Mr. Smith filed a timely notice of appeal after the entry of final ju dgment, we conclude we have the authority to review the merits of his appeal from t he disqualification and sanctions orders.
On October 10, 1995, the district court entered its order dismissing the case with prejudice pursuant to the settlement agreementbetween Mr. Qualls and the Regional Transportation District. Mr. Smith subseq uently filed a timely notice of appeal — in fact, he filed several. We therefore c onclude we have jurisdiction to review the disqualification and sanctions orders. Having done so, we find no error and affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court.-4-

The disqualification and sanction orders challenged in appeals No. 95- 1385, 95-1459, and 95-1489 are AFFIRMED , and the remaining contentions in those appeals are DISMISSED . The petitions for writ of mandamus or prohibition in Nos. 95-1385, 95-1459, and 95-1489 are DENIED
.

Entered for the Court: WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge