Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 23, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-01149-CV NOEL RUBIO, Appellant V. TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION AND DALLAS ISD, Appellees On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-00027-C



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justi ce Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Before the Court is appellant’s October 13, 2015 motion to extend time to file his notice of appeal. Because we conclude appellant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the need for an extension, we deny appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant seeks to appeal an order signed August 17, 2 015 dismissing for want of jurisdiction his de novo appeal of a justice court judgment. Appellant did not file a motion or pleading extending the appellate timetable. Thus , appellant's notice of appeal from the county court’s judgment was due on or before Sept ember 16, 2015. The certificate of service on appellant’s notice of appeal st ates that the notice of appeal was mailed August 21, 2015, but both the notice of appeal filed in th e trial court and the copy filed in this Court are file stamped–2– September 21, 2015. 1 For that reason the notice of appeal is not timely under rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the “mailbox rule,” b ecause the enlargement of time granted by rule 5 applies only to pleadings received with in ten days of the mailing date. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 5. An extension of time to file a notice of appe al may be granted if an appellant files a notice of appeal within fifteen days after the deadline for timely filing a notice of appeal and files a motion complying with rule of appellate procedure 10.5(b). See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3. Appellant’s notice of appeal wa s filed within this fifteen da y grace period. Accordingly, by letter dated October 5, 2015, the Co urt directed appellant to file a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal that complied with rule 10.5( b). Appellant filed a motion for extension of time, but the motion did not comply with rule 10.5(b). Appellant’s motion requested additional time to file the notice of a ppeal because, “I show documents that I had my certificat e and I renew my certificate ev ery 5 Years. And the question was about my certificate. And the letter of notice of dismissal I do not receive this days.” He further stated: I totally disagree with decision on my case # CC-15-00027 on August 17,2015. This case only a question of law, whic h was answered by my correctly. I worked the school year 2012-2013 a nd the question was give me a certificate of August 15, 2013 and I give my certificate 2018 and it cover the years 2012-2013-2014- 2015-2016-2017-and 2018. Note / By law no one can work as a teacher, if do not had a certificate. I renew my certificate every 5 years. Appellant’s explanation goes to the merits of his underlying clai m and does not address the facts that reasonably explain his need for an extension. Rule 10.5(b )(2) requires that a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal must set forth the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.5(b)(2)(A). The Texas Supreme Court has defined “reasonable explanation” to mean any plausible st atement of circumstance indicating that failure

1 Moreover appellant’s motion to extend time to file notice of appeal does not include evidence of the date of mailing. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 5 (document must be sent by first-class ma il in properly addressed and stamped envelope; legible postm ark affixed by United State s Postal Service shall be prima facie evidence of date of mailing).–3– to file the notice of appeal within the required period was not deliberate or intentional, but was the result of inadvertence, mistake, or mischance. Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc., 774 S.W.3d 668, 669 (Tex. 1989). Appellant’s motion does not satisfy this requirement. We deny appellant’s motion to extend time to file his notice of appeal. Without a timely filed notice of app eal, this Court lacks jurisdiction. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.1(b). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

151149F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
NOEL RUBIO, Appellant
No. 05-15-01149-CV V.
TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION AND DALLAS ISD, Appellees On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-00027-C. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating. In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. It is ORDERED that appellees TEXAS WO RKFORCE COMMISSION AND DALLAS ISD recover their costs of this a ppeal from appellant NOEL RUBIO.
Judgment entered this 23rd day of October, 2015.