Reyna, et al v. Ashcroft, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
2 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10619
Conference Calendar
ANDRES MONTOYA REYNA, SR.; ELIDA REYNA;
ANDRES MARES REYNA, JR.; REBECCA REYNA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES;
RICARD A. MEDEMA, Senior Attorney for the Drug Enforcement
Administration Office of Domestic Operations Asset Forfeiture
Sections; MIA MOORE, DEA Agent; COLIN J. SULLIVAN, Officer-
Detective,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:01-CV-841-A
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Andres Montoya Reyna, Sr., and Elida Reyna move this court
for appointment of counsel. The motion is DENIED. Mr. and Mrs.
Reyna have appealed the district court’s entry of a partial final
judgment dismissing civil rights claims filed by their son,
Andres Mares Reyna, Jr., as barred by Heck v. Humphrey2 and

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-10619
-2-
dismissing the claims of all plaintiffs to the extent that they
are based on allegedly invalid warrants authorizing searches of
two residences occupied by the Reynas and their son.
Andres Montoya Reyna, Sr., and Elida Reyna lack standing to
appeal the dismissal of their adult son’s claims. Mr. and Mrs.
Reyna’s briefing of their challenge to the validity of the
warrants is inadequate as it is not supported by citation to the
record. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the warrants and find that the
appellants’ challenge to their validity is baseless. United
States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 411-12 (5th Cir. 1999).
This appeal lacks arguable merit. Consequently, it is
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20
(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The appellants are WARNED that
the filing of future frivolous appeals will result in sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR COUNSEL DENIED; SANCTION
WARNING ISSUED.

-- 2 of 2 --