United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 25, 2003
In the Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
_______________
m 02-41404
_______________
IN THE MATTER OF:
CLAMONT ENERGY CORPORATION INC.,
Debtor.
LEO ROGER DUGAS,
Appellant,
VERSUS
JASON R. SEARCY,
Appellee.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
m 1:02-CV-27
_________________________
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and stricken by the bankruptcy court’s November
CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 29, 2001, order (“second November order”).
Briefs filed by both parties were also stricken
PER CURIAM:* by a December 12, 2001, order (“December
order”) because the case was closed and the
Leo Dugas seeks review of the district question had already been decided in the
court’s order dismissing his appeal from a final November order.
order of the bankruptcy court. Because the
district court lacked jurisdiction over the On December 19, 2001, Dugas filed a no-
appeal, we affirm. tice of appeal to the district court; Searcy filed
a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely on
I. January 14, 2002. The district court entered
This appeal arises from an adversary pro- an order on September 16, 2002, dismissing
ceeding that commenced May 10, 1993, which the appeal as untimely.
related to chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding
concerning the estate of Clamont Energy Cor- II.
poration Inc. (“Clamont”). Appellee Jason Dugas appealed to the district court seeking
Searcy served as the trustee of Clamont. The review of the bankruptcy court’s striking of his
bankruptcy court approved a settlement be- motion seeking a contempt order and its
tween Searcy and Dugas on February 23, 1994 refusal to vacate the settlement order. The
(“settlement order”). bankruptcy court denied consideration of these
questions with its first and second November
On May 14, 1996, the bankruptcy court or- orders, respectively. These orders were both
dered that the adversary proceeding be re- final orders disposing of the motions.
manded to state court. Dugas appealed that
remand order. The district court dismissed the Dugas filed his notice of appeal to the dis-
appeal for lack of jurisdiction on Novem- trict court on December 19, 2001. He there-
ber 26, 1996; we affirmed the dismissal order. fore missed the ten-day deadline prescribed by
The case was closed February 3, 1998. the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure
with respect to both orders. See FED. R.
On October 29, 2001, Dugas filed a motion BANKR. P. 8002(a) (“The notice of appeal shall
to show cause why Clamont should not be be filed with the clerk within 10 days of the
held in contempt of the settlement order. The date of the entry of judgment, order, or decree
bankruptcy court issued an order on Novem- appealed from.”).
ber 8, 2001 (“first November order”), striking
appellant’s motion because the case was “Failure to file a timely notice of appeal
closed. On November 19, 2001, Dugas moved deprives the district court of jurisdiction to
to vacate the settlement order; this motion was consider the appeal.” In re Don Vincente
Macias, Inc., 168 F.3d 109, 211 (5th Cir.
1999) (punctuation omitted). Because the dis-
* trict court lacked jurisdiction, we also lack jur-
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has deter-
mined that this opinion should not be published and is isdiction over the merits raised on appeal by
not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
Dugas. See id. The district court’s dismissal
of the appeal is therefore AFFIRMED.
3