IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20430

Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: LARRY MOTTU GUERRERO; LARRY ROBERT 

GUERRERO, also known as Larry Guerrero, also known as Robert Guerrero, 

doing business as Golden Eagle Construction, doing business as Texas Eagle 

Construction, formerly known as Robert Campos Guerrero; HEATHER 

LYNN GUERRERO, formerly known as Heather Sahr, 

Debtors

WILLIAM KING SATTERWHITE,

Appellant

v.

TIMOTHY GUIN; OFFICER GRADY SMITH; LARRY ROBERT 

GUERRERO; CITY OF WHARTON,

Appellees

In the Matter of: LARRY MOTTU GUERRERO,

Debtor

WILLIAM KING SATTERWHITE,

Appellant

v.

LARRY ROBERT GUERRERO,

Appellee

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 31, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20430 Document: 00512987271 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2015
No. 14-20430

In the Matter of: LARRY ROBERT GUERRERO, also known as Larry 

Guerrero, also known as Robert Guerrero, doing business as Golden Eagle 

Construction, doing business as Texas Eagle Construction, formerly known 

as Robert Campos Guerrero; HEATHER LYNN GUERRERO,

Debtors

WILLIAM KING SATTERWHITE,

Appellant

v.

LARRY ROBERT GUERRERO, also known as Larry Guerrero, also known as 

Robert Guerrero, doing business as Golden Eagle Construction, doing 

business as Texas Eagle Construction, formerly known as Robert Campos 

Guerrero; HEATHER LYNN GUERRERO,

Appellees

In the Matter of: LARRY MOTTU GUERRERO,

Debtor

WILLIAM KING SATTERWHITE,

Appellant

v.

LARRY MOTTU GUERRERO,

Appellee

In the Matter of: LARRY MOTTU GUERRERO,

2

 Case: 14-20430 Document: 00512987271 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2015
No. 14-20430Debtor

Debtor

WILLIAM KING SATTERWHITE,

Appellant

v.

LARRY MOTTU GUERRERO,

Appellee

In the Matter of: LARRY MOTTU GUERRERO,

Debtor

WILLIAM KING SATTERWHITE,

Appellant

v.

LARRY MOTTU GUERRERO; CITY OF WHARTON; TIMOTHY E. GUINN; 

GRADY SMITH; BRANDON CRUZ; LARRY ROBERT GUERRERO,

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 4:13-CV-1325

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

* 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.

3

 

 Case: 14-20430 Document: 00512987271 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2015
No. 14-20430

This is a consolidated appeal from a bankruptcy adversary proceeding. 

Appellant William King Satterwhite, the plaintiff in the adversary proceeding, 

appeals the bankruptcy court’s orders: (1) denying his motion to remand or 

abstain; (2) dismissing his state-law claim against Appellee Larry Robert 

Guerrero; and (3) allowing the seizure and sale of Satterwhite’s property to 

satisfy sanctions imposed on Satterwhite in the form of attorney’s fees. After 

Satterwhite submitted his Appellant’s Brief, Guerrero moved to dismiss for 

failure to timely file a notice of appeal. For the following reasons, we GRANT 

the motion and DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Following the entry of a final judgment by the bankruptcy court, 

Satterwhite appealed to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) (granting 

district courts jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments of adjunct 

bankruptcy courts). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court and 

entered its final judgment on March 18, 2014. On April 15, 2014, Satterwhite 

filed three motions with the district court: (1) a motion for a new trial under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59; (2) a motion for additional findings of fact; 

and (3) a motion to correct mistakes. On June 12, 2014, the district court 

issued an order on the post-judgment motions. Satterwhite then filed a notice 

of appeal on July 3, 2014. See § 158(d) (granting federal courts of appeals

jurisdiction to hear appeals from district courts’ final judgments entered under 

§ 158(a)).

If Satterwhite’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, then we lack 

jurisdiction to hear the appeal because “timely filing of a notice of appeal in a 

civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 

214 (2007); Perez v. Stephens, 745 F.3d 174, 178-79 (5th Cir. 2014). Generally, 

the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure apply to appeals from a final 

judgment of a district court exercising appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy 

cases under § 158(a). F. R. APP. P. 6(b)(1); but see F. R. APP. P. 6(b)(1)(A)-(D) 

4

 Case: 14-20430 Document: 00512987271 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/31/2015
No. 14-20430

(qualifying the general rule that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 

apply to bankruptcy appeals). Appellants normally must file their notice of 

appeal within thirty days after entry of final judgment. F. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1). 

Therefore, Satterwhite’s notice of appeal, which he filed more than three 

months after the district court entered its final judgment, was not timely 

unless some exception to the thirty-day limit applies. 

The filing of some post-judgment motions can toll the Rule 4(a)(1) clock 

until the lower court disposes of the motion. See F. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4), 6(b)(2)(A). 

In a non-bankruptcy appeal, Rule 4(a)(4) provides that motions for, inter alia,

additional findings of fact or a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

59 can toll the Rule 4(a)(1) clock. F. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(v). However, in a 

bankruptcy appeal from a district court exercising appellate jurisdiction under 

§ 158(a), Rule 4(a)(4) does not apply. F. R. APP. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Instead, only 

motions for rehearing under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8022 can 

toll the statute. F. R. APP. P. 6(b)(2)(A).

While Satterwhite’s motions for a new trial or for additional findings of 

fact would have tolled the clock in a non-bankruptcy appeal, they have no effect 

in the context of a bankruptcy appeal. See F. R. APP. P. 6(b)(1)(A). A timely 

motion for rehearing under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8022 

provides the only mechanism to toll the clock of appellate notice. See In re 

Eichelberger, 943 F.2d 536, 537-38 (5th Cir. 1991). Even if we construe one of 

Satterwhite’s motions from April 15 as a motion for rehearing, it could not have 

been a timely motion for rehearing because Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 

Procedure 8022 provides a fourteen-day period for filing and Satterwhite filed 

his motions twenty-eight days after the district court entered its final 

judgment on March 18. See id.

In short, Satterwhite failed to file a timely motion for rehearing, so he 

had thirty days from the district court’s entry of judgment to file his notice of 

5

 Case: 14-20430 Document: 00512987271 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/31/2015
No. 14-20430

appeal. Because he waited more than three months to file, his notice was 

untimely, and we, therefore, lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Accordingly, 

we GRANT Guerrero’s motion to dismiss Satterwhite’s appeal.

6

 Case: 14-20430 Document: 00512987271 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/31/2015