Richard A. Johannsen v. Nabors Industries, Inc., Nabors Holding Company, Nabors Corporate Services, Inc., Scott Burdine, Carl D. Kulhanek, Jr. and Hagans, Bobb & Burdine, P.C.--Appeal from 189th District Court of Harris County

Dismissed and Opinion filed March 27, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-00056-CV

____________

RICHARD A. JOHANNSEN, Appellant

V.

NABORS INDUSTRIES, INC., NABORS HOLDING CO., NABORS CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., SCOTT BURDINE, CARL D. KULHANEK, JR., and HAGANS, BOBB & BURDINE, P.C., Appellees

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 02-29689

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed October 21, 2002. No post-judgment motions attacking the judgment were filed. Appellant=s notice of appeal was filed on January 13, 2003.

The notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed when appellant has not filed a timely motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusion of law. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1

Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 9 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617-18. Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed within the fifteen-day period provided by rule 26.3

On February 27, 2003, notification was transmitted to all parties of the Court=s intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant=s response fails to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Appellant responded to our notification by stating that on December 16, 2002, the trial court signed an order granting appellee=s November 12, 2002, motion to approve amount of attorney=s fees and costs. A motion to approve attorney=s fees is not the type of post-judgment motion that extends the deadline to perfect an appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.

The appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed March 27, 2003.

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Seymore, and Guzman.