Case: 21-40338 Document: 00516070505 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 26, 2021
No. 21-40338
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Alexander Groys,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:14-CR-111-1
Before Stewart, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
In 2015, Alexander Groys, former federal inmate # 22580-078,
pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, and he was sentenced to
78 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. In 2021, he
filed a document in his criminal case that resulted in this direct criminal
appeal, and he now moves for the appointment of counsel in this court.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-40338 Document: 00516070505 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2021
No. 21-40338
We, however, do not have jurisdiction over Groys’s appeal because he
has not filed an effective notice of appeal. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244,
248 (1992); United States v. Clayton, 613 F.3d 592, 594 (5th Cir. 2010). The
primary relief requested in the document that Groys filed in the district court
most resembles a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on the alleged
deprivation of a timely direct appeal as the result of ineffective assistance of
counsel. See, e.g., United States v. Cong Van Pham, 722 F.3d 320, 323-24 (5th
Cir. 2013). We express no opinion regarding the availability of such relief in
the district court, but the document does not clearly evince his intent to bring
an untimely direct appeal of his 2015 judgment. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d
659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987); Bailey v. Cain, 609 F.3d 763, 765-67 (5th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, Groys’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
His motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot.
2