United States v. Groys ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Case: 21-40338     Document: 00516070505          Page: 1    Date Filed: 10/26/2021
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                               United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    October 26, 2021
    No. 21-40338
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Alexander Groys,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:14-CR-111-1
    Before Stewart, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    In 2015, Alexander Groys, former federal inmate # 22580-078,
    pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, and he was sentenced to
    78 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. In 2021, he
    filed a document in his criminal case that resulted in this direct criminal
    appeal, and he now moves for the appointment of counsel in this court.
    *
    Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
    Case: 21-40338      Document: 00516070505          Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/26/2021
    No. 21-40338
    We, however, do not have jurisdiction over Groys’s appeal because he
    has not filed an effective notice of appeal. See Smith v. Barry, 
    502 U.S. 244
    ,
    248 (1992); United States v. Clayton, 
    613 F.3d 592
    , 594 (5th Cir. 2010). The
    primary relief requested in the document that Groys filed in the district court
    most resembles a claim pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     based on the alleged
    deprivation of a timely direct appeal as the result of ineffective assistance of
    counsel. See, e.g., United States v. Cong Van Pham, 
    722 F.3d 320
    , 323-24 (5th
    Cir. 2013). We express no opinion regarding the availability of such relief in
    the district court, but the document does not clearly evince his intent to bring
    an untimely direct appeal of his 2015 judgment. See Mosley v. Cozby, 
    813 F.2d 659
    , 660 (5th Cir. 1987); Bailey v. Cain, 
    609 F.3d 763
    , 765-67 (5th Cir. 2010).
    Accordingly, Groys’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
    His motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-40338

Filed Date: 10/26/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/27/2021