United States v. Dowell

Opinion

Case: 25-20161 Document: 70-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED March 16, 2026 No. 25-20161 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Matthew Scott Dowell,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CR-719-5 ______________________________

Before Graves, Ho, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Matthew Scott Dowell was convicted of conspiracy to advertise child pornography and was sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment, followed by a lifetime term of supervised release. He appeals the district court’s orders denying his postjudgment motion to dismiss all charges and his motion for reconsideration of that motion. Dowell also moves for the appointment of

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-20161 Document: 70-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2026

No. 25-20161

counsel. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief. We have a duty to consider, sua sponte, if necessary, the basis of the district court’s and this court’s own jurisdiction. See Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 n.2 (5th Cir. 1987); Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Dowell’s motion to dismiss all charges was filed more than one year after the entry of the amended judgment and after any appeal period had expired. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). Because the criminal proceeding was no longer pending, Dowell’s motion was unauthorized and without a jurisdictional basis. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2)-(3); United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Thus, any appeal from the denial of Dowell’s motion to dismiss all charges, even if timely, was an appeal from the denial of a “meaningless, unauthorized motion.” Early, 27 F.3d at 142. His motion for reconsideration of the denial of that motion was also a “meaningless, unauthorized motion.” Early, 27 F.3d at 142. Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED AS MOOT, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Dowell’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.