Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20107/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20107-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Michael Johnston
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 10, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20107

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEPHEN MICHAEL JOHNSTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-02-CR-142-4

--------------------

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Stephen Michael Johnston appeals his conviction following

his guilty plea to possession of child pornography in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). The Government’s motion to strike

Johnston’s brief is DENIED.

Johnston was entitled to an extension of time in which to

file an appeal because his lawyer’s failure to file a timely

appeal upon Johnston’s request to do so constituted “excusable

neglect” under FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(4). See United States v.

 Case: 03-20107 Document: 0051618796 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2004
No. 03-20107

-2-

Clark, 191 F.3d 845, 846 (5th Cir. 1999); Roe v. Flores-Ortega,

528 U.S. 470, 477 (2000). Thus, Johnston’s notice of appeal,

filed on January 10, 2003, is timely based in excusable neglect. 

Johnston’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. See

United States v. Vonn, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1046 (2002). Johnston

has either waived the remaining issues he raises on appeal by

virtue of his valid guilty plea (see United States v. Cothran,

302 F.3d 279, 285-86 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Glinsey,

209 F.3d 386, 392 (5th Cir. 2000)), or has abandoned them by

failing to brief them adequately. See United States v. TorresAugilar, 352 F.3d 934, 936 n.2 (5th Cir. 2003).

Counsel is WARNED that filing frivolous appeals invites the

imposition of sanctions. See United States v. Gaitan, 171 F.3d

222, 224 (5th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-20107 Document: 0051618796 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2004