United States v. Ernest Owens, Jr. ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 19-10880      Document: 00515465217         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/24/2020
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 19-10880                            June 24, 2020
    Lyle W. Cayce
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                         Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    ERNEST HOWARD OWENS, JR., also known as “E”,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:16-CV-119
    USDC No. 1:13-CR-34-1
    Before SMITH, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Ernest Howard Owens, Jr., federal prisoner # 46574-177, moves this
    court for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s
    dismissal of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion as untimely. Owens filed the § 2255
    motion to challenge his 151-month sentence for possession with intent to
    distribute cocaine. Owens contends that the district court erroneously applied
    the career offender enhancement to his sentence.
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 19-10880     Document: 00515465217    Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/24/2020
    No. 19-10880
    If necessary, we must examine the basis of our jurisdiction sua sponte.
    Mosley v. Cozby, 
    813 F.2d 659
    , 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A § 2255 proceeding is civil
    in nature, United States v. Young, 
    966 F.2d 164
    , 165 (5th Cir. 1992), “and the
    timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite.” Hernandez
    v. Thaler, 
    630 F.3d 420
    , 424 (5th Cir. 2011) (footnotes omitted). The district
    court’s judgment was entered on July 17, 2018. Therefore, Owens had 60 days,
    or until September 17, 2018, to file his notice of appeal. See FED. R. APP. P.
    4(a)(1)(B)(i).
    Owens did not file his notice of appeal within the 60-day period. Instead,
    on July 26, 2019, Owens moved for an extension of time to file a notice of
    appeal. A district court may grant a litigant an additional 30 days in which to
    file a notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause if such
    a request is made within 30 days of the expiration of the original time to file a
    notice of appeal. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(5)(A). As the time for Owens to file a
    notice of appeal expired on September 17, 2018, the motion for extension was
    due on October 17, 2018. Owens’s motion for extension was therefore untimely
    and any ruling on it by the district court was insufficient to perfect appellate
    jurisdiction. See FED. R. APP. 4(a)(5)(A); see also In re MDL 262, 
    799 F.2d 1076
    ,
    1078-79 (5th Cir. 1986) (holding that compliance with Rule 4(a)(5) is essential
    to appellate jurisdiction).
    Because Owens failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we do not have
    jurisdiction. See Hernandez, 
    630 F.3d at
    424 & n. 11; In re MDL 262, 
    799 F.2d at 1078-79
    . The appeal, accordingly, is DISMISSED for want of appellate
    jurisdiction. Owens’s motions for a COA and appointment of counsel are
    DENIED.
    2