Villalon v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Fifth Circuit

Villalon v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

549 F. App'x 288

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 18, 2013

Docket19-30197

StatusUnpublished

This text of 549 F. App'x 288 (Villalon v. Immigration & Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Villalon v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 549 F. App'x 288 (5th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

On October 1, 2012, Juan Fernando Villalon, former federal prisoner # 03958-379 and immigration detainee # A029 327 003, filed a notice of appeal in his 28 U.S.C. *289 § 2241 case. See Spotville v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374, 376-78 (5th Cir.1998) (holding that under the prison mailbox rule, a prisoner is deemed to have filed a document in federal court when he deposits it in the prison mail system). The notice of appeal was not timely as to the district court’s final judgment entered on June 24, 2009, or any of the district court’s orders entered prior to August 2012. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to consider those decisions in the instant appeal. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Nevertheless, because the notice of appeal was filed within 60 days of the district court’s entry of an order denying six post-judgment motions filed on July 12, 2012, we have the requisite jurisdiction to review that order. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).

Even with the benefit of liberal construction, Villalon does not challenge the district court’s denial of his July 12, 2012, motions or the court’s determination that the motions were filed in the wrong case. By failing to do so, Villalon has waived the only issues over which this court has jurisdiction. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir.1999). Moreover, the July 12, 2012, motions were, in essence, meaningless, unauthorized motions which the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994). Accordingly, Villalon’s appeal is without arguable merit, see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983), and it is DISMISSED as frivolous, see 5th Cir. R. 42.2. All outstanding motions are DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *289 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

On October 1, 2012, Juan Fernando Villalon, former federal prisoner # 03958-379 and immigration detainee # A029 327 003, filed a notice of appeal in his 28 U.S.C. *289 § 2241 case. See Spotville v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374, 376-78 (5th Cir.1998) (holding that under the prison mailbox rule, a prisoner is deemed to have filed a document in federal court when he deposits it in the prison mail system). The notice of appeal was not timely as to the district court’s final judgment entered on June 24, 2009, or any of the district court’s orders entered prior to August 2012. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to consider those decisions in the instant appeal. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Nevertheless, because the notice of appeal was filed within 60 days of the district court’s entry of an order denying six post-judgment motions filed on July 12, 2012, we have the requisite jurisdiction to review that order. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).

Even with the benefit of liberal construction, Villalon does not challenge the district court’s denial of his July 12, 2012, motions or the court’s determination that the motions were filed in the wrong case. By failing to do so, Villalon has waived the only issues over which this court has jurisdiction. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir.1999). Moreover, the July 12, 2012, motions were, in essence, meaningless, unauthorized motions which the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994). Accordingly, Villalon’s appeal is without arguable merit, see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983), and it is DISMISSED as frivolous, see 5th Cir. R. 42.2. All outstanding motions are DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *289 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

549 F. App'x 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villalon-v-immigration-naturalization-service-ca5-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack