
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Andrew Maxwell PARKER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50461
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 3, 2013.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jennifer Bonjean, Bonjean Law Group, P.L.L.C., Brooklyn, NY, for Defendant Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Andrew Maxwell Parker, federal prisoner # 08987-424, appeals a third amended judgment, which modified, in his favor, periods of supervised release imposed pursuant to his pleading guilty to, inter alia, counts 27 and 28 of his indictment. Parker raises no issue, however, with respect to that amended judgment. E.g., Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987) (failure to brief issues relating to judgment appealed from equivalent to not appealing at all). He instead raises claims rejected by the district court in denying his related 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. (Although the § 2255 motion was denied, it prompted the judgment’s being amended.)

Parker, however, has not obtained the requisite certificate of appealability (COA) authorizing an appeal of those claims. The COA requirement is jurisdictional. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).

On the other hand, Parker has an appeal pending (case number 12-50628) from the denial of his § 2255 motion. The district court denied a COA. He may seek a COA from this court for that appeal.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     