IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10649
Conference Calendar
JEFF LEGGETT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; DARWIN
SANDERS, Warden,
Respondents-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:95-CV-310
- - - - - - - - - -
June 13, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeff Leggett, Texas prisoner # 590716, moves this court for
a certificate of appealability (COA), following the district
court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Because Leggett’s notice of appeal was untimely,
the only issue before the court is whether the district court
abused its discretion by denying Leggett’s request to file a late
notice of appeal based upon excusable neglect. See United States
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-10649
-2-
v. Clark, 51 F.3d 42, 43 n.5 (5th Cir. 1995)(setting forth the
standard for review of excusable-neglect finding).
Leggett’s argument that his request to file a late notice of
appeal should have been granted because he relied upon the
assertions of his “agent” that the habeas proceedings were being
held in abeyance is unavailing. The district court’s final
judgment dismissing Leggett’s habeas petition put him on notice
that the 30-day appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A)
had begun to run. Additionally, Leggett’s argument that his time
to appeal did not begin to run until after he received notice of
the district court’s final judgment of dismissal is legally
incorrect. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
Leggett fails to show that the district court abused its
discretion by denying his request to file a late notice of appeal
based upon excusable neglect, and the appeal therefore is
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Leggett’s motions for a COA,
injunctive relief, and permission to supplement the record are
DENIED because of the lack of appellate jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.