Case Name: Gregg William PAULSON, Sergeant, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B.B. BELL, Lieutenant General or Successor, United States Army, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-03
Citations: 88 F. App'x 804
Docket Number: No. 03-11245
Parties: Gregg William PAULSON, Sergeant, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B.B. BELL, Lieutenant General or Successor, United States Army, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 804–805

Head Matter:
Gregg William PAULSON, Sergeant, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B.B. BELL, Lieutenant General or Successor, United States Army, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-11245.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 3, 2004.
Gregg William Paulson, #825838, pro se, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Smith Unit, Lamesa, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Gregg William Paulson, Texas prisoner # 825838 appeals the dismissal as frivolous of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging his state custody on the ground that he is a prisoner of war and is being denied his rights under the Geneva Convention. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). A timely notice of appeal is a prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by this court. United States v. Carr, 979 F.2d 51, 55 (5th Cir.1992). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) requires that the notice of appeal in a civil action be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or order from which appeal is taken.
Paulson did not file his notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of the district court's July 17, 2003, dismissal order. Instead, his notice of appeal was filed in excess of four months later, on November 19, 2003, at the earliest. The November 19 notice of appeal was timely as to the district court's denial of Paulson's post-judgment "Motion for a Full and Fair Hearing To Determine Facts in Dispute" only. However, Paulson briefs no argument regarding the denial of that motion, devoting his brief instead to the merits of his case and to the propriety of the district court's dismissal of his petition. By failing to brief any argument regarding the denial of his motion for a full and fair hearing, Paulson has abandoned the sole available ground for appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); see also Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The appeal is therefore DISMISSED.
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.