Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10892/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10892-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Reginald Holt
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10892

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN REGINALD HOLT,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-135

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

John Reginald Holt, federal prisoner # 39118-177, seeks a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion challenging his jury trial conviction for conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine.

“This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, 

if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). “[T]he timely 

 

* 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

May 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-10892 Document: 00513517669 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2016
No. 14-10892

2

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” 

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

This court reviews de novo questions of law regarding jurisdiction. 

Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 436 F.3d 508, 513 (5th Cir. 2006). The final 

judgment was entered on May 29, 2014; therefore the final day for filing a 

timely notice of appeal was July 28, 2014. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(i). 

Even assuming that Holt’s sworn declaration that he placed the notice of 

appeal into the prison’s general mail system on July 23, 2014, is true, the 

record reflects that Holt failed to comply with the statutory authority and 

prison regulations in failing to use the prison’s legal mail system. FED. R. APP.

P. 4(c)(1); Dison v. Whitely, 20 F.3d 185, 187 (5th Cir. 1994). Therefore, Holt 

has not shown that he is entitled to the benefit of the mailbox rule. See Medley 

v. Thaler, 660 F.3d 833, 838 (5th Cir. 2011). Because Holt did not file a timely 

notice of appeal, his appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Bowles, 

551 U.S. at 214.

COA DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

 Case: 14-10892 Document: 00513517669 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2016