IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50758

Summary Calendar

SONIA ELADIA ACOSTA SALDIVAR, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ERICK RODELA, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CV-76

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sonia Saldivar filed a complaint in federal district court, seeking relief

under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act.1 The district court

entered judgment in her favor on June 22, 2012. Its order explained that

Saldivar had fourteen days to file an itemized request for attorney’s fees and

costs. Saldivar filed that request fifteen days later, on July 7, 2012. Defendant

Erick Rodela responded on July 16, 2012, contending in part that Saldivar’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 18, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

1

42 U.S.C. § 11601.

 Case: 12-50758 Document: 00512212965 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2013
No. 12-50758

request was untimely.2 On July 20, 2012, Rodela filed a notice of appeal “from

a final order entered in this action on June 22, 2012.”

The district court awarded fees and costs in an order dated October 10,

2012. Rodela did not file a notice of appeal from that order. Rodela now contends

that because Saldivar’s motion was untimely, the district court abused its

discretion by partially granting her request for fees and costs. Because Rodela

did not appeal from the October 10 order, we lack jurisdiction to resolve this

contention.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)(B) provides that a “notice of

appeal must . . . designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.”3

That requirement is jurisdictional.4“Where the appellant notices the appeal of

a specified judgment only or a part thereof, . . . this [C]ourt has no jurisdiction

to review other judgments or issues which are not expressly referred to and

which are not impliedly intended for appeal.”5 Although the district court’s June

22, 2010 order mentioned costs and fees, the court did not award costs and fees

until several months after Rodela filed his notice of appeal. And while Rodela did

not appeal until briefing on cost- and fee-shifting was complete, he “could not

have intended to appeal the [cost- and fee-shifting] ruling in [his] notice[] of

appeal because the [cost- and fee-shifting] order had not yet been made at the 

2 Saldivar replied to this response on July 19, 2012.

3 FED. R. APP. P. 3(c)(1)(B).

4 See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 651–52 (2012); Taylor v. Univ. of

Phoenix/Apollo Group, 487 F. App'x 942, 948–49 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).

5 Molina v. Equistar Chems. LP, 261 F. App’x 729, 732 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Pope v.

MCI Telecomms. Corp., 937 F.2d 258, 266 (5th Cir.1991) (internal quotation marks omitted))

(alteration in original).

2

 Case: 12-50758 Document: 00512212965 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2013
No. 12-50758

time the notice[] of appeal [was] filed.”6 We therefore DISMISS.

6 Taylor, 487 F. App’x at 949 (emphasis added); cf. U.S. ex rel. Stebner v. Stewart &

Stephenson Servs, Inc., 144 F. App'x 389, 394–95 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“Concerning his

challenge to the approximately $ 42,000 in costs awarded S & S, Stebner filed a notice of

appeal from the 2 February 2004 judgment on 1 March 2004, after S & S had filed its bill of

costs on 17 February and Stebner had filed a motion on 27 February for review of costs. On

7 April, the district court granted S & S’s original bill of costs. That 7 April decision was an

independently appealable order. . . . Stebner’s 1 March notice of appeal specifies appeal only

from the 2 February judgment. Because he failed to file a supplemental notice of appeal,

specifying the 7 April costs-award, we lack jurisdiction to review this issue.”).

3

 Case: 12-50758 Document: 00512212965 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/18/2013