Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20721/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20721-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Earlie Dickerson
Appellant
Edward Graham
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20721

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

EDWARD GRAHAM; EARLIE DICKERSON,

Defendants–Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-732-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Earlie Dickerson and Edward Graham were charged in the same indictment, proceeded to trial together, and were convicted of conspiracy to commit 

 

* 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

FILED

August 20, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20721 Document: 00513163500 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2015
No. 14-20721

2

mail fraud and mail fraud. This opinion pertains only to Dickerson.

Judgment was entered in September 2014. Dickerson filed a notice of 

appeal from the judgment in February 2015. He also filed a pro se motion to 

have the judgment of conviction reinstated for the purpose of restarting the 

appellate filing period, and his trial counsel filed a motion on his behalf seeking 

leave to file an out-of-time appeal. The court denied those motions, and Dickerson filed a timely, additional notice of appeal from that order of denial. Dickerson now requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and he moves 

for the appointment of appellate counsel.

The notice of appeal from the underlying judgment of conviction was filed 

more than five months after entry of judgment and well beyond both the time 

for appealing and the time for extending the appeal period. See FED. R. APP.

P. 4(b)(1)(A), (b)(4). Because the government did not waive timeliness of the 

notice of appeal and Dickerson is not entitled to have the untimeliness disregarded, there is thus no arguable legal merit to the appeal from the order denying the motion to reinstate and the motion for an out-of-time appeal. See Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 18 (2005); United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 

473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 

1983); see also United States v. Woods, 575 F. App’x 215, 216 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Consequently, the appeal is DISMISSED, see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2, and Dickerson’s 

motions for appointment of counsel and leave to proceed in forma pauperis are 

DENIED.

 Case: 14-20721 Document: 00513163500 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2015