Case Name: Frank M. BURKE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. William MILLER, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1981-01-23
Citations: 639 F.2d 306
Docket Number: No. 80-1558
Parties: Frank M. BURKE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. William MILLER, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GEE, RUBIN and RANDALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 639
Pages: 306–306

Head Matter:
Frank M. BURKE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. William MILLER, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 80-1558
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Unit A
Jan. 23, 1981.
Thompson & Knight, James Yuill Robb, III, Buford P. Berry, Emily A. Parker, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Richard Farber, Daniel F. Ross, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Kenneth J. Mighell, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for defendantsappellees.
Before GEE, RUBIN and RANDALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:
The reasons the district court lacks jurisdiction are fully set forth in its lucid opinion. Burke v. Blumenthal, 504 F.Supp. 35 (N.D.Tex.1980). We affirm the dismissal of this case for lack of jurisdiction.
The appellants argue that it is clear the government could not ultimately prevail on the merits under any circumstances. For the reasons set forth in the government's brief, the likelihood of government success is neither foreclosed nor negligible. It is, indeed, substantial.
The ability to fill more than 36 pages with ho more than legal spun sugar does not make an argument substantial. The appeal is frivolous, and we award double costs. Rule 38 F.R.A.P. Because this appears to be adequate sanction, we refrain from awarding damages.
AFFIRMED.