Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Instead, on May 31, 2012, he moved for an extension of time to file his NOA, claiming good cause and excusable neglect under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The problem for Spring, however, is that a Rule 4(a)(5) motion based on good cause or excusable neglect must be filed within thirty days of the expiration of the time to file an NOA. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i). Because the period for filing an NOA expired on April 27, the motion for extension was due May 29 (excluding May 27 and 28, a Sunday and a federal holiday, respectively). See Fed. R.App. P. 26(a)(l)(A)-(C). The May 31 motion was untimely, and the district court’s order granting the motion did not confer jurisdiction on this court. See, e.g., In re MDL 262, 799 F.2d 1076, 1078-79 (5th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Spring’s motion for a COA, filed on 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient (B) holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error (C) holding that compliance with rule 4a5 is essential to appellate jurisdiction (D) holding that because record did not contain notice of appeal in compliance with rule 3 there was no appellate jurisdiction and appeal must be dismissed (E) holding that strict compliance is not required
Output (English): holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient