
    Buford RANDLE, Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
    No. 17-40293
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed November 30, 2017
    Buford Randle, Pro Se
    Susan Frances San Miguel, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Edward Larry Marshall, Office of the Attorney General, Postconviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Petitioner-Appellant Buford Randle, Texas prisoner # 1970284, filed a motion in this court seeking a certificate of ap-pealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application in which he challenges his convictions for evading arrest and possession of cocaine. Randle raised claims in the district court that his counsel had rendered ineffective assistance in numerous respects, mainly related to (1) his mental health or (2) his claim that his guilty plea was involuntary because he was heavily medicated when he pleaded. To obtain a COA, Randle must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary. Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 424 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2011). Randle’s notice of appeal was'filed more than 30 days after the entry of the final judgment denying his § 2254 petition. That made his notice of appeal untimely. See Fed. R. Apr. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (c)(1). A federal habeas proceeding is civil in nature. When the time in which to file a notice of appeal in a civil case is set by statute, it is jurisdictional. Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Serv. of Chicago, - U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 13, - L.Ed.2d - (2017); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). We therefore lack jurisdiction in this case because Randle’s notice of appeal was untimely. Randle’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and his request for a COA is DENIED as MOOT. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.
     