### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40435 Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: ASARCO, L.L.C., Et Al,

Debtor

-------------------------------- AUTRY EARL BARNEY,
Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:15

- CV

- 58

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
Pro s e Appellant Autry Earl Barney appeals the district court’s order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court. Because the district court correctly concluded that Barney’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, the
district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Accordingly, we AFF IRM the order dismissing the appeal.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 23, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40435 Document: 00513204983 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2015No. 15

- 40435

2 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Autry Earl Barney’s pro se appeal arises from the bankruptcy proceedings of ASARCO , L.L.C. Barney reports that he alleged that ASARCO exposed him to asbestos and that he is curren tly suffering from asbestosis and other physical disorders as a result of this expo sure. He further reports that
he sought $150,000 in damages from ASARCO as compensation

. On January 15, 2015, Barney filed a notice of appeal with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. While Barney was ostens ibly appealing an order of the b ankruptcy c ourt, he did not identify which order he was appealing, and no entry on the bankruptcy co urt’s docket sheet in the two
months prior to January 15, 2015, mentions Barney. On March 4, 2015, t he district court dismissed Barney’s appeal under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The court explained that the notice of appeal was filed more t han fourteen days after the entry of any order by the bankruptcy court and was thus filed outside the time period allowed by Rule 8002(a)(1). T he district court also held that dismissal was proper because Barney failed to comply with three other requireme nts specified in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Barney filed a motion for reconsideration on March 19, 2015, and the district court denied that motion on March 25, 2015, for the same reasons that it originally dismissed Barney’s case. Barney timely appealed from the order on the motion for reconsideration on April 1 , 2015. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Although it was not stated explicitly by the district court, Barney’s failure to comply with the time limit in Rule 8002(a)(1) deprived the district court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal

. In re Berman

- Smith , 737 F.3d 997,
1003 (5th Cir. 2013) (holding that a district court may not hear an appeal from a bankruptcy court if the notice of appeal was not filed within the time limi t set by Rule 8002(a) )

. “Federal courts must be assured of their subject matter Case: 15-40435 Document: 00513204983 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2015No. 15

- 40435

3 jurisdiction at all times and may question it sua sponte at any stage of judicial proceedings.” In re Bass , 171 F.3d 1016, 1021 (5th Cir. 1999)

. We review de

novo whether a district court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a bankruptcy court. Id. “Jurisdiction may not be waived, and federal appellate courts have a special obligation to consider not only their own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts.” In re Berman

- Smith , 737 F.3d at 1000. III. DISCUSSION Rule 8002(a) (1) requires that a “notice of appeal must be filed with the bankruptcy clerk within 14 days after entry of the judgment, order, or decree being appealed.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a) (1)

. The Supreme Court explained
in Kontrick v. Ryan , 540 U.S. 443, 452

– 56 (2004), that time limits contained in procedural rules adopted by courts, rather than by Congress, are not jurisdictional. I n Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 213 (2007), the Court
clar ified that time limits included in statutes are jurisdictional because Congress can determine “when, and under what conditions, federal courts can hear [cases].” Id. Based on these decisions, we held in In re Berman

- Smith , 737 F.3d at 1003, that “[s]ince the statute defining jurisdiction over bankruptcy appeals, 28 U.S.C. § 158, expressly requires that the notice of appeal be filed under the time limit provided in Rule 8002 . . . the time limit is jurisdictional.”
Id. In this case, Barney filed a notic e of appeal on January 15, 201 5, but prior to that date, the b ankruptcy court had entered no orders , judgments, or decrees, in the preceding fourteen days. Thus, Barney’s notice of a ppeal was untimely, and the district court properly dismissed the appeal under Rule 8002(a) (1)

. Because we find that the district court properly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, we need not consider the other reasons given by the court for dismissal. However, we note that, assuming the district court had Case: 15-40435 Document: 00513204983 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/23/2015No. 15

- 40435

4 j urisdiction, we find no error in the district court’s additional reasons for dismissing Barney’s case under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Barney’s motio n to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Case: 15-40435 Document: 00513204983 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/23/2015