Case: 15-40331 Document: 00513699647 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-40331
FILED
September 30, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
RONALD WAYNE SCHOFIELD, Clerk
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:12-CV-372
Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Ronald Wayne Schofield, Texas prisoner # 1434055, was convicted of
failing to register as a sex offender and was sentenced to serve 11 years in
prison. His 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition was dismissed as
untimely. Now, he moves this court for a certificate of appealability (COA)
concerning the denial of several postjudgment motions filed with respect to the
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 15-40331 Document: 00513699647 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2016
No. 15-40331
dismissal of his § 2254 petition and for appointed counsel. His motion for
counsel is DENIED.
We should always be mindful of our jurisdiction and consider this issue
sua sponte when needed. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987).
Because federal habeas proceedings are civil in nature, see Archer v. Lynaugh,
821 F.2d 1094, 1096 (5th Cir. 1987), a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional
requirement, Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The notice of appeal
in a civil action must be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or order
from which the appeal is taken. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
The notice of appeal from which this proceeding arises specifies that it
pertains to seven different items but is not timely as to any of them.
Consequently, insofar as Schofield seeks to appeal these items, his appeal is
DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction, and his request for a COA on these items
is DENIED as moot. See Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214.
Schofield’s notice of appeal is timely filed as to the district court’s April
2015 order. Nonetheless, he is not entitled to relief as to this judgment. The
district court has not ruled on the issue whether Schofield should receive a
COA as to this judgment. Because the district court has not made a COA
ruling, we assume without deciding that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings; Cardenas v. Thaler, 651
F.3d 442, 443-44 & n. 2 (5th Cir. 2011). We decline to remand to the district
court for a COA ruling because a remand would be futile. See United States v.
Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000). Rather, we DISMISS for want of
jurisdiction. See id.
In his filings with this court, Schofield has not presented any argument
relative to the issue whether the judgment over which we have jurisdiction is
erroneous. Accordingly, he has waived this issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
2
Case: 15-40331 Document: 00513699647 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/30/2016
No. 15-40331
F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th
Cir. 1999). His request for a COA with regards to the district court’s April 2015
order is DENIED as moot.
3