Voyd B. Burger appeals the district court’s denial of permission to file a complaint for unpaid seaman’s wages. Burger previously had been sanctioned by the district court and barred from filing any *433 pleadings on the issue of his seaman’s wages unless the filing was justified by a compelling showing of new evidence previously unavailable.

Burger argues on appeal that his present claim is not barred by the statute of limitations and that the district court in a prior case erred in determining that his claim was barred by res judicata. Although his factual statement indicates that he obtained an affidavit and discovered a relevant statute, Burger’s argument contains no showing, much less a compelling showing, of new evidence previously unavailable. Accordingly, Burger has abandoned any argument that the district court erred in denying him permission to file a complaint for unpaid wages. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 612-13 (5th Cir. 1999); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

The appeal is frivolous and it is DISMISSED as such. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Burger is WARNED that sanctions will be imposed if he files frivolous appeals in the future.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.