
    WESLEY R. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PMAC, Union Planters Bank Na, its successors in interest and/or assignees; Brown & Shapiro LLP, Attorneys at Law, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-20183.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Oct. 21, 2004.
    Wesley R Wilson, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    
      Jesse Ward Conville, Conville & Con-ville, Hattiesburg, MS, John R. Strawn, Cruse, Scott, Henderson & Allen, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Wesley R. Wilson’s motion to recuse Circuit Judges Barksdale, Emilio Garza, and Dennis is DENIED. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994).

Wilson has appealed the district court’s order denying his motions for relief, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint, in which Wilson sought relief from an order of the bankruptcy court. Rule 60(b)(4) provides that the court may relieve a party from a final judgment if “the judgment is void.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). “A judgment is void for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4) if the court that rendered it entered an order outside its legal powers.” Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir.1998). If the district court had subject matter and personal jurisdiction, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is appropriate only if “the district court acted in a manner so inconsistent with due process as to render the judgment void.” Callon Petroleum Co. v. Frontier Ins. Co., 351 F.3d 204, 210 (5th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Wilson has not shown that the district court erred.

Because the appeal is without arguable merit, it is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Wilson that the filing of frivolous appeals and motions will invite the imposition of a sanction.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     