IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-30474 (Summary Calendar)

IN THE MATTER OF: A. LAMAR SMITH, Debtor, A. LAMAR SMITH; DIANE H. SMITH; SMITH PACKAGING, INC.; SMITH & SPRAWLS, INC.; SMITH TRANSPORT CO.; LAMAR SMITH LAND CORP., Appellants, versus SPANISH LAKE PROPERTIES L.L.C.; JUANITA B.

HENRY; JOSEPH M. HENRY, III; JOHN W. LUSTER; LUSTER, CONINE & BRUNSON L.L.P.; JOHN A.

LUSTER, Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (0-CV-35) -------------------- September 27, 2000 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, CIRCUIT JUDGES.

PER CURIAM:* Debtor and Appellant A. Lamar Smith and the several parties and entities collectively constituting appellants, as well as the several parties and entities collectively constituting appellees,

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. are obviously well acquainted with the lengthy and contentious history of the litigation underlying this appeal, as are the district court and the bankruptcy court from which this appeal emanates. There is no need, therefore, for us to recite even an abbreviated version of the facts and proceedings that eventuated in the judgments and orders now sought to be appealed. It suffices that we have reviewed as best we could the less than pristine record on appeal and have carefully considered the history, the relevant facts, and the applicable law as reflected in the appellate briefs of the parties and the opinions of the district court and the bankruptcy court. As a result we are convinced that, in all respects, the two federal courts that have patiently dealt with the various incarnations of this litigation and the excessive procedural maneuverings of the appellants have not only done so without committing reversible error but have ruled correctly in each instance.

Even though neither of those courts have labeled as frivolous the acts and actions of appellants, particularly, A. Lamar Smith, we find them wholly lacking in any legal merit whatsoever. As such, the instant appeal of the courts’ dispositions of unanimously unmeritorious claims is frivolous. Therefore, rather than sort through all the claims asserted by appellants on appeal, then dismiss those over which we have no jurisdiction and affirm those over which we do, we instead dismiss as frivolous this appeal in its entirety and assess all costs to appellants. In so doing we

caution appellants and their counsel against prolongation of this meritless litigation as doing so could expose them to sanctions and disciplinary proceedings.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.