in the Estate of Roberta Marion Shiflet

                     NO. 12-05-00050-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

  TYLER, TEXAS

  §APPEAL FROM THE

IN THE ESTATE OF                                        §     COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF

ROBERTA MARION SHIFLET,

DECEASED

§SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

---

---

  MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            On February 4, 2005, Appellant Wilbur Allen Shiflet filed his notice of appeal in this case. On February 18, 2005, we notified Appellant, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.2, that the docketing statement received in this appeal indicates that the notice of appeal was not filed within the time allowed by rule of appellate procedure 26.1 and that there was no timely motion for an extension of time to file same as permitted by rule of appellate procedure 26.3. Therefore, the docketing statement does not show the jurisdiction of this Court. Appellant was further informed that the appeal would be dismissed if the information received in the appeal was not amended on or before February 28, 2005 to show the jurisdiction of this Court.

            On February 25, 2005, Appellant responded to our notice stating that he did not receive notice or actual knowledge of the appealed order within twenty days of the date the order was signed. Based upon Appellant’s response, we notified Appellant that he must comply with rule of appellate procedure 4.2(c). We further notified Appellant that the appeal would be presented for dismissal unless, on or before March 7, 2005, Appellant provided this Court a file-marked copy of the trial court’s order establishing the date he received notice or actual knowledge that the appealed judgment or order was signed.

            Appellant has furnished a certified copy of an order signed on March 7, 2005. The order includes a finding that Appellant acquired actual knowledge of the appealed order within twenty days of the signing of the order. Consequently, the trial court denied Appellant’s request to extend the postjudgment deadlines. Thus, Appellant has not established the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.2, 42.3.

Opinion delivered March 16, 2005.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(PUBLISH)