(caption unavailable)

* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 92-2838
Summary Calendar
IN THE MATTER OF: SUZANNE FRAME,
Debtor.
ALLEN JAMES, ET AL.,
Appellees,
VERSUS
SUZANNE FRAME,
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(CA-H-91-47)
(November 23, 1994)
Before GARWOOD, SMITH and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
For the third, and hopefully the last, time we address an
appeal arising out of the infamous investment activities of Suzanne
Frame and her various corporate entities. In Frame v. S-H, Inc.,

-- 1 of 4 --

2
967 F.2d 194 (5th Cir. 1992) (Frame I), this Court affirmed the
district court's decision to strike Frame's pleadings and enter a
default judgment for damages against her in the original civil
fraud lawsuit (C.A. H-86-4589) that precipitated this litigation.
In James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 1993) (Frame II), this
Court again affirmed the decision of the district court which
remedies one aspect of the calculation of damages in Frame I. In
the same hearing in which the district court addressed the issue of
correcting these damages, the district court also entertained the
motion of various creditors and judgment holders (the "James
Group") to dismiss the Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding which Frame
had pending before the same district court under 11 U.S.C. § 707.
This bankruptcy proceeding had been originally filed in the
Southern District of New York and, one year later was transferred
to the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Texas, where it
was docketed under Bankruptcy Clerk's No. 90-07461-H2-11 pursuant
to the general order of the Southern District of Texas referring
all bankruptcy matters to that bankruptcy court. Immediately upon
such docketing, however, the district court withdrew the reference
of such bankruptcy case to the bankruptcy court and opened a new
docket in the Civil District Clerk's Office under Civil Action No.
H-91-0047 for the further handling of such bankruptcy proceeding by
the district court. Thereafter, the parties, the district court,
and the district clerk followed a practice of labelling motions and
orders with one or more of the various numbers being used to
designate documents in this litigation (H-86-4589 or 90-07461-H2-11

-- 2 of 4 --

3
or H-91-0047) and filing and docketing such motions and orders in
one or more of the various dockets with no consistency in either
pattern. Additionally, the district court follows a practice of
making oral rulings during hearings and subsequently writing
cryptic orders indicating the results of such rulings with little
explanation as to the reasons why. As a result, the task of this
court in appellate review has been greatly compounded.
On appeal, Frame asserts three issues:
(1) whether her notices of appeal were sufficient to vest
this court with appellate jurisdiction;
(2) whether the district court's actions in dismissing her
bankruptcy proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 707 constitutes
"an abuse of discretion and/or were clearly erroneous as
a matter of law;" and
(3) whether the dismissal order pretermitted litigation of
issues of dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523 and/or
§ 727 and constitutes an abuse of discretion or was
clearly erroneous as a matter of law?
The James Group, as appellees, do not question this court's
appellate jurisdiction and our examination of the records satisfies
us that the notices of appeal were timely filed from final orders
of the district court.
As to the other two issues raised by Frame, we have carefully
reviewed the briefs, record excerpts and relevant portions of the
records themselves, which because of the cross-labeling and cross-
docketing referred to above was an unnecessarily complicated task.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
We note the long and intimate familiarity which the district court
had with this litigation as described in Frame I and Frame II.
Giving appropriate deference to the district court's findings and
conclusions, which for the most part were oral, and recognizing
that the district court acted in the role of both bankruptcy judge
and district judge during this litigation, we have concluded that:
(a) the decision of the district court to dismiss the
bankruptcy proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 707 was not
clearly erroneous; and
(b) the district court did not abuse its discretion by
deciding to dismiss the bankruptcy proceeding under § 707
rather than deal with issues of dischargeability under 11
U.S.C. § 523 or § 727.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing the
bankruptcy proceeding is AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --