Case Name: Derrick GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-08
Citations: 102 F. App'x 420
Docket Number: No. 03-21098
Parties: Derrick GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 420–420

Head Matter:
Derrick GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-21098.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided July 8, 2004.
Derrick Graham, Beeville, TX, pro se.
Tommy Lee Skaggs, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Graham, Texas prisoner # 813442, was convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He requests a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred. We previously remanded this case to the district court to determine when Graham submitted his notice of appeal to prison authorities for mailing. The district court determined that Graham's notice of appeal was submitted for mailing on October 29, 2003. Graham does not challenge this finding. The last day for filing a timely notice of appeal was October 27, 2003. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a); Fed. R.App. P. 26(a)(3). Because the notice of appeal is untimely, we dismiss Graham's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny his motion for a COA as moot. See United States v. Garcia-Machado, 845 F.2d 492, 493 (5th Cir.1988).
APPEAL DISMISSED; COA DENIED AS MOOT.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.