U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2026

Crocker v. Guerrero

Crocker v. Guerrero
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided July 23, 2026
Crocker v. Guerrero

Opinion

Case: 25-40747 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals No. 25-40747 Fifth Circuit

Summary Calendar FILED ____________ July 23, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Brandon Earl Crocker, Clerk Petitioner—Appellant, versus Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:23-CV-408 ______________________________ Before Clement, Haynes, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Brandon Earl Crocker, Texas prisoner # 2333098, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application as untimely and the denial of his motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). He also moves for the appointment of counsel.

Case: 25-40747 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2026

No. 25-40747

We lack jurisdiction to review the dismissal of Crocker’s § 2254 application because he failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the underlying judgment. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 583 U.S. 17, 19–20 (2017); Bailey v. Cain, 609 F.3d 763, 767 (5th Cir. 2010).

Although Crocker timely appealed from the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, the certificate of appealability (COA) issued by the district court is a defective procedural-only COA. See Pierre v. Hooper, 51 F.4th 135, (5th Cir. 2022) (per curiam). Moreover, we decline to issue a valid COA in its place given that Crocker cannot satisfy the statutory requirements for issuance of a COA as to the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion.

See id. at 137–39; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 428–431 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

Accordingly, the COA is VACATED, the appeal is DISMISSED, and Crocker’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.