
    Mark James SAVOY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Howard PRINCE, Warden, Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-31121
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed July 14, 2017
    Mark James Savoy, Pro Se
    Jennifer Miller Ardoin, Attorney, District Attorney’s Office, Opelousas, LA, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Mark Savoy, Louisiana prisoner # 580262, moves for a certificate of appeal-ability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Savoy claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. He also moves for appointment of counsel. To obtain a COA, Savoy must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Savoy’s notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days from the entry of the final judgment denying his § 2254 petition; therefore, it is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Though Savoy’s notice of appeal was filed within the period for seeking an extension under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A)(i), he neither styled the notice as a motion for extension of time nor requested such an extension in the body of the notice.

Savoy’s post-judgment motion asking the district court to reconsider the denial of his motion for a COA did not toll the period for filing a timely notice of appeal. See Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. of Ill, 434 U.S. 257, 263, n.7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). It also did not render his previously filed notice of appeal dormant until the district court entered its order disposing of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i), Because the notice of appeal was untimely, we lack jurisdiction to address the motion for a COA.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction, the request for a COA is DENIED as MOOT, and the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir, R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     