## I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-50758 Summary Calendar

SONIA ELADIA ACOSTA SALDIVAR, Plaintiff - Appellee

v. ERICK RODELA, Defendant - Appellant

A ppeal 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 Internat i o nal Child Abduction Remedies Act. 1 

### T he d istrict court entered judgment in her favor on June 22, 2012. Its order explain e d that Saldivar had fourteen d ays to file an itemized request for a t t o r n e y ’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 p a r t t hat S aldivar’s U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

## F I L E D April 18, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not preced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum stances s et f orth in 5 T H C I R

. 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 

### O n J uly 20, 2012, Rodela filed a n otice of a pp e a l “ f rom a final order entered in this action on June 22, 2012.” The district court a warded fees and costs in an order dat e d October 10, 2012. R odela did not file a notice of appeal from that order. Rodela now contends that becaus e S aldivar’s motion was untimely, the district court abused its discretion by partially granting her request for f ees a nd costs. Because Rodela did n ot appeal from t he October 10 order, we lack jurisdicti o n t o r e s o lve this contention. Federal R u l e of Appellate P rocedure 3(c)(1)(B) provides t hat a “ n otice of appeal must

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

### That requirement is jurisdictional. 4 

### “Where t he appellant notices the appeal of a specified judgment only or a part thereof, . . . this [C]ourt has no jurisdiction to review other judgments or issu e s w h ich are not expressly referred to and which are not impliedly intended for a p peal.” 5 

### Although t h e district court’s June 22, 2010 order mentioned costs and fees, the court did not award costs and fees until several months after R odela filed his notice of appeal. And while R odela did not appeal until briefing on cost- and fee-shifting was c omplete, he “c o u l d not have intended t o a ppeal the [cost- and fee-shifting] r u l ing in [ his] notice[] of appeal because the [cost- and fee-shifting] o r d er had n ot yet been made at the

2 Sald ivar rep lied to this res p ons e on July 19, 2012.

3 F E D

. R. A P P

. P. 3( c) ( 1) ( B)

.
4 See G onz a l ez v. Tha l er , 132 S. Ct. 641, 651–52 ( 2012) ; Ta yl or v . U

n i v . of Phoeni x/ A

p ol l o G roup , 487 F. Ap p 'x 942, 948–49 (5th Cir. 2012) ( p er curiam )

.
5 M ol i na v . Equi sta r Chem s. LP , 261 F. Ap p ’x 729, 732 ( 5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Pop e v . M CI Tel ecom m s. Corp

. , 937 F. 2d 258, 266 ( 5th Cir. 1991) ( internal quotation m ark s om itted ) ) ( 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 Ta yl or , 487 F

. Ap p ’x at 949 ( e m p h a s i s a d d ed ) ; cf

. U. S. ex rel

. S t ebner v . Stew a rt & Step henson Serv s , Inc. , 144 F. A p p 'x 389, 394–95 ( 5th C ir. 2005) ( p er curiam ) ( “Concerning his challenge to the ap p roxim ately $ 42, 000 in cos ts aw ard ed S & S, Stebner f i l e d a n o t i c e of ap p eal f rom the 2 February 2004 j ud gm ent on 1 March 2004, af ter S & S had f

iled its bill of
cos ts on 17 February and Stebner had f iled a m otio n on 27 F ebruary f or review of cos ts

. O n 7 Ap ril, the d is trict court granted S & S’s original bill of cos ts

. That 7 Ap ril decis ion w as an ind ep end ently ap p ealable ord er. . . . Stebner’s 1 M arch notice of ap p eal s p ecif ies ap p eal only f rom the 2 February jud g ment. Becaus e he f ailed to f

ile a s up p lem ental notice o f ap p eal,
s p ecif ying the 7 Ap ril cos ts

- aw ard , w e lack j uris d iction to review this is s ue. ”)

. 

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