Whether the Fifth Circuit's dismissal of the petitioner's appeal as untimely conflicts with the 'mailbox rule' established by this Court and other circuit courts

QUESTIONS PRESENTED i : The courts, the statutes and the rules of the judiciary require under strict : ; | and unchangeable timelines that to move forward, to appeal, or to respond to h appellate pleadings and orders, a party must submit and consummate their action within the relevant time parameters. Proceeding pro se, Petitioner Wayne English (“English”) mailed his notice of appeal by USPS priority mail on April 7, 2022, four days prior to the 30 day appellate deadline. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). . , The tracking report provided that the postal service delivered the notice on April 9, 2022. The District Clerk for unknown reason had misplaced the notice, subsequently placing the notice on the docket on April 12" one day past the April 11, 2022 appellate deadline. English reference and produced his USPS priority mail tracking report which confirmed delivery to the District Court on April 9, 2022 at 4:59 pm. Apx.C. The tracking report which was attached to English’s motion for extension of time, shows it was printed on April 12" at 11:38am, immediately subsequent to his oo phone call to the clerk. Id. Ignoring the evidence of delivery and this Court’s | adherence of the ‘mailbox rule’, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled the appeal was untimely and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. | Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U.S. 185, 193 (1884) {Under the mailbox rule, if a 2 letter “properly directed is proved to have been either put into the post‘ office or delivered to the postman, it is presumed . . . that it reached its I} destination at the regular time, and was received by the person to whom it was addressed.”); See also Phila. Marine Trade Ass’n.-int’l Longshoremen’s : Ass’n Pension Fund v. C.I.R., 523 F.3d 140, 147 (3d Cir. 2008). | | The questions presented are: | : 1. Is this decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in ruling that the | Petitioner’s appeal was untimely is in direct conflict with this court in | : |. Rosenthal and in the Third, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals under | the ‘mailbox rule’. ; 2. Is the Federal common law doctrine under the ‘mailbox rule’ still in force | giving litigants the expectation of the timely delivery of the mail? : 3. Is the production of a USPS priority mail tracking report prima facie evidence of the movement and delivery of the U. S. mail to governmental facilities? | | 4. \s the failure of the clerk to timely file and docket pleadings fatal to the litigants’ judicial proceedings? ' 3 . jo! | | and Carol Maas, and Jim Pier (collectively the “Taylor Claimants”), who are ; represented by Charles Thomas Schmidt. Schmidt Law Firm PLLC, 7880 San Felipe codes Suite 210, Houston, Texas 77063. .. ‘