                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                           __________________

                             No. 99-11180
                           Summary Calendar
                          _________________

                            UDO BIRNBAUM,

                                                Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                versus

                         RICHARD RAY; ET AL.,
                                                         Defendants,

          RICHARD RAY; TOMMY W. WALLACE; JAMES B. ZIMMERMAN;
         RICHARD DAVIS; PAT MCDOWELL, Judge; LESLIE P. DIXON;
             BETTY DAVIS; WILLIAM JONES; BECKY K. MALONE,

                                            Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Northern District of Texas
                          (3:99-CV-696-R)
_________________________________________________________________


                            July 28, 2000

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Udo Birnbaum challenges, pro se, the dismissal, for failure to

state a claim under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), of his Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) complaint .




     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
     Birnbaum’s RICO action arises out of a state-court action

brought against him by defendant William Jones.         Birnbaum’s action

is an attempt to attack collaterally the validity of an adverse

state-court judgment.     Federal courts lack jurisdiction to engage

in appellate review of state-court determinations.              District of

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482

(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923);

Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994).

“When issues raised in a federal court are inextricably intertwined

with a state judgment and the court is in essence being called upon

to review the state-court decision, the court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction”.     Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir.

1995)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

     Because Birnbaum’s claims arise solely from the state-court

litigation   and   are   “inextricably   intertwined”    with    the   state

court’s judgment, the district court judgment is

                                                            AFFIRMED.




                                 - 2 -
