Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Servando GONZALES-REYES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-18
Citations: 210 F. App'x 416
Docket Number: Nos. 05-20418, 05-41028, 06-40174
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Servando GONZALES-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 416–417

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Servando GONZALES-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 05-20418, 05-41028, 06-40174
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 18, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Servando Gonzales-Reyes (Gonzales) seeks to appeal three judgments arising from his offense of illegally reentering the United States. Gonzales fails to show that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for an extension of time to file appeals in case No. 05-20418 and case No. 05-41028. See United States v. Clark, 51 F.3d 42, 43 n. 5 (5th Cir.1995).
The appeals in case No. 05-20418 and case No. 05-41028 are dismissed for failure to comply with the rule requiring a timely notice of appeal. See Burnley v. City of San Antonio, 470 F.3d 189, 192 n. 1 (5th Cir.2006); Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(l)(A)(i). In case No. 06-40174, Gonzales makes no argument relative to the judgment. He has thus waived appeal of any issue pertaining to that judgment. See United States v. Ragsdale, 426 F.3d 765, 785 n. 9 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1417, 164 L.Ed.2d 114 (2006). The judgment in appeal No. 06-41074 is affirmed.
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.