IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________

m 01-20417 Summary Calendar _______________

DALE D. NESFIELD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

NATIONAL MARITIME UNION; NICHOLAS BACHKO COMPANY, INCORPORATED; AND UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas m H-99-CV-2634 _________________________ November 29, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH, and I. EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. Dale Nesfield, a pro se litigant, appeals the dismissal of claims related to his job termina- PER CURIAM:* tion by Nicholas Bachko Company, Incorpo- rated, that have already been rejected twice by this court. See Nesfield v. United States Coast * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum- stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Guard, No. 00-20081 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 2000) nore this court’s warning to desist from filing (unpublished); Nesfield v. Nat’l Maritime further frivolous appeals, it is ordered that he Union, No. 99-21022 (5th Cir. June 16, 2000) be sanctioned wit h a fine of $100; he is or- (unpublished). On the second occasion, Nes- dered to remit payment to the clerk of this field was sanctioned and fined $100 for filing court within thirty days of the issuance of the a frivolous appeal and was warned that “fur- mandate in this case. Nesfield is once again ther frivolous appeals will result in the imposi- warned, in the strongest possible terms, that tion of additional sanctions.” Nesfield v. Unit- further frivolous appeals can, and likely will, ed States Coast Guard, at 2. result in the imposition of additional sanctions.

Despite this warning, Nesfield has chosen APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS to file yet another appeal raising the same is- IMPOSED. sues. He now claims that his case should be reconsidered because the defendants’ actions have allegedly triggered the onset of his dia- betic condition.

The district court held that Nesfield had failed to provide sufficient evidence either to reinstate his case or to begin a new lawsuit. A dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) is subject to de novo review. Jackson v. City of Beaumont Police Dep’t,

(5th Cir. 1992). Denial of a FED. R. CIV. P. 60 motion to set aside an earlier judgment is sub- ject to review only for abuse of discretion. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljberg Enters., Inc.,

(5th Cir. 1994).

We need not decide which standard is ap- plicable here, because Nesfield has failed to present sufficient evidence to justify overruling the district court’s decision under either. The appeal is frivolous and must be dismissed. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

II. “This court is authorized to impose sanc- tions upon those who pursue frivolous ap- peals,” and “[a] litigant’s pro se status does not preclude imposition of [such] sanctions.” Lyons v. Sheetz,

(5th Cir. 1987). Because Nesfield has chosen to ig-

2