* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR .

R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .

R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20887 ROY C. AMES, doing business as Home Cooking Records; CLARITY MUSIC, Plaintiffs - Counter Defendants - Appellants, versus LES KIPPEL, ET AL., Defendants, LES KIPPEL; RELIX RECORDS, INC., Defendants - Count er Claimants - Appellees, RELIX MAGAZINE AND RECORDS; SOUTHWEST WHOLESALE RECORDS AND TAPES, Defendants-Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-95-CV-3238) December 14, 1999 Before POLITZ, GARWOOD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Roy C. Ames challenges the district courtÂ’s confirmation of an arbitration award and dismissal of his claims agai nst Relix Records, et al. For the reasons assigned, we affirm.

BACKGROUND Ames and Relix were parties to an arbitration proceeding in a dispute over several license agreements that grant ed Relix the right to manufacture and sell sound recordings by Johnny Winter. During the arbitration process, Ames was ordered to produce certain documents, which he failed to do despite repeated orders and warnings that his complaint would be dismissed and that an award would be rendered in favor of Relix. Several months after the in itial deadline for document production, Ames alleged for the first time that the license agreements at issue had expired and submitted a termination letter purportedly sent to Relix by Ames. Relix responded that the letter was fraudulent, citing multiple inconsistencies. Finding that Relix made a p rima facie showing of fraud in connection with the letter, the arbitrat o r directed Ames to respond to the fraud allegations and to comply with the previous production orders. The arbitrator warned Ames that, absent a response, he would find that the letter was fraudulent and that Ames intended to commit fraud upon the arbitrator and the arbitration process. Again, Ames wholly failed to comply with the arbitra torÂ’s orders. The arbitrator thereafter concluded that the letter was intentionally fraudulent. The arbitrator then invit ed both parties to submit evidence relevant to termination of the license agreements and relevant to the determination that AmesÂ’ claims should be dismissed with prejudice without a hearing on the merits. Close upon three months later, Ames again was advised by the arbitrator that he was in default as to both the show cause and production orders. After providing Ames yet another opportunity to show cause why a default judgment should not be rendered against him and receiving no response, the arbitrator entered a preliminary award for Relix and against Ames on every liability issue. The arbitrator entered a final award against Ames, granting Relix $100,000 in actual damages, trebled to $300,000, plus attorneyÂ’s fees and costs. Ames also was ordered to bear all of the fees associated with the arbitration proceedings.

Ames, d/b/a Home Coo king Records, and Clarity Music (collectively, “Ames”) filed an action against Les Kippel; Relix Records, Inc.; Relix Magazine and Records, Inc.; and Southwest Rec ords and Tapes (collectively, “Relix”) seek ing to vacate the arbitration award. Ames also sought partial summary jud gment on his claims against Relix for copyright infringement and false designation of origin. Relix moved to confirm the arbitration award. The district court denied Ames’ motions for partial summary judgment.

Concluding that there were no grounds upon which to reject or vacate the arbitration award, the court rendered judgment confirming the award in its entirety.

The court, determining that all claims and counterclaims were subject to arbitration and were addressed by the arbitration award, dismissed same with prejudice. This appeal followed. Further, we will not reconsider an award based on alleged errors of fact or law or misinterpretation of the contra ct. 5 In determining whether an arbitrator exceeded his powers, we resolve all doubts in favor of arbitration. 6 We have recognized that arbitrators may “devise appropriate sanctions for abuse of the arbitration process.” 7 It is apparent that Ames abused the arbitration process by repeatedly refusing to comply with the arbitrator’s orders and warnings.

We also a ccept the arbitratorÂ’s finding that Ames intentionally submitted a fraudulent document. Thus, we hold that it was within the arbitratorÂ’s authority to sanction Ames for his noncompliance and fraudulent conduct by det e rmining all liability issues against him and in favor of Relix. A close review of the briefs and record on appeal persuades that no grounds exist upon which to vacate the arbitration award. We conclude that the terms of the award rationally may be inferred from the underlying agreements. Our limited role in the review of arbitration awards mandates that we affirm the district courtÂ’s judgment confirming the award.

Ames also complains of the district c ourtÂ’s denial of his two motions for summar y judgment. His first motion relates to his claim that Relix continued to violate his copyrights after the Birds Can Â’t Row Boats license was terminated in 1994. His second motion seeks summary judgment on his claims that Relix infringed his copyrights and falsely designated the origin of certain Birds songs on its Best of the Blues Volumes II and III. We treat his challenges to the denial of summary judgment as an appeal of the district courtÂ’s judgment dismissing all claims based upon the courtÂ’s determination that they were subject to the partiesÂ’ arbitration agreements and resolved by the arbitration award. Ames contends that the district court erred in concluding t hat the claims asserted in his summary judgment motions were subject to arbitration. Specifically, he maintains that neither of the claims contained in his summary judgment motions were based upon a contract or an agreement containing an arbitration clause. Assuming, arguendo , that these claims were not subject to arbitration under the general arbitration provisions in the license agreements, we nonetheless agree with the district court that these issues were presented for arbitration and properly resol ved by the arbitration award. We have noted that parties may agree to the submission to arbi tration of existing controversies without any prior contract or agreement to do so. 8 The record discloses that Ames previously submitted to the arbitra tor the issues set forth in his summary judgment motions. 9 The arbitrator specifically denied AmesÂ’ request for damages on these issues in the final partial award, which was reconfirmed in the final award. 10 Accordingly, we hold that the district court properly dismissed AmesÂ’ claims with prejudice, as they were subject to arbitration and addressed by the arbitration award.

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.

2 Executone Info. Sys., Inc. v. Davis , 26 F.3d 1314 (5 th Cir. 1994). 3 First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan , 514 U.S. 938 ( 1995). The Federal Arbitration Act provides that an arbitration award shall not be vacated unless: (1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) there is evidence of partiality or corruption in the arbitrator; (3) the arbitrat or was guilty of misconduct which prejudiced the rights of one of the parties; or (4) the arbitrator exceeded his powers. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a); G ateway Techs., Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp. , 64 F.3d 993 (5 th Cir. 1995). 4 Executone , 26 F.3d at 1320. 5 Nauru Phosphate Royalties v. Drago Daic Interests, Inc. , 138 F.3d 160 (5 th Cir.), cert. denied ,, U.S., 119 S.Ct. 179 (1998). 6 Executone , 26 F.3d at 1320. 7 Forsythe IntÂ’l v. Gibbs Oil Co. , 915 F.2d 1017, 1023 n. 8 (5 th Cir. 1990)

8 General Motors Corp. v. Pamela Equities Corp. , 146 F.3d 242 (5 th 1998). 9 Ames’ Demand for Arbitration defines the nature of the dispute as “Breach of Contr acts/Copyright Infringement/Fraud.” Throughout the arbitration proceedings, Ames advanced the same allegations upon which his summary judgment motions are based. Ames also explicitly placed these issues before the arbitrator in his 10/11/96 Statement of Issues and his 10/24/96 Statement of Issues, which were submitted to the arbitrator prior to the final arbitration hearing. 10 Specifically, the arbitrator noted that Mr. Ames’ damages for Relix’s infring ement, after license ter mination, of Mr. Ames’ rights in Birds Can’t Row Boats . . . are denied as to Relix as part of the award ba sed on Mr. Ames’ various malfeasances