Case ID: f-appx_485/html/0689-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Paul ROBERTS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-30236
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 10, 2012.
    Paul Roberts, Jr., Angola, LA, pro se.
    Loren M. Lampert, District Attorney’s Office, Alexandria, LA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Paul Roberts, Jr., Louisiana prisoner # 450517, moves for a certificate of appeal-ability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to reopen the time to file an appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his 2005 convictions for second degree murder, attempted second degree murder, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. A COA is not required to appeal the denial of a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6) motion. See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir.2007); Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d 491, 492 (5th Cir.2002). Accordingly, Roberts’s COA motion is DENIED as unnecessary.

Roberts contends that district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen the time to file an appeal from the denial of his § 2254 application. Because his motion was filed after this court dismissed his appeal as untimely, see Roberts v. Cain, No. 11-31138 (5th Cir. Jan. 4, 2012) (unpublished), this court’s prior determination that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal is binding under the law of the case doctrine and should not be revisited here, see Fuhrman v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 893, 896-97 (5th Cir.2006).

Further, Roberts has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion. Because his motion was filed more than 60 days after the entry of judgment, it was untimely for purposes of Rule 4(a)(5). See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i). Further, although Roberts’s motion was filed within 180 days after the entry of judgment, it was filed more than 14 days after November 7, 2011, the date upon which he received notice of the judgment. Therefore, his motion was also untimely for purposes of Rule 4(a)(6), see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6)(B), and the district court was powerless to reopen the time for filing a notice of appeal, see Re-sendiz v. Dretke, 452 F.3d 356, 360 (5th Cir.2006). Finally, Roberts has not shown that the district court had a duty to notify him that his notice of appeal was untimely, nor has he shown that the lack of any such notice authorizes an extension of the appeal period. Accordingly, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.