                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-16-00349-CV
                           ____________________

          HOA DAO AND KEYSTONE MANAGEMENT, Appellants

                                        V.

      MARYLAND CASUALTY INS. AND CRAIG RAUSS, Appellees
_______________________________________________________            ______________

                    On Appeal from the 359th District Court
                         Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 10-07-07575-CV
________________________________________________________            _____________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Hoa Dao and Keystone Management 1 filed a notice of appeal on September

19, 2016. The Court notified the parties that the notice of appeal did not appear to

have been timely filed. In a response, Hoa Dao argued the notice of appeal was due

either 120 days after the date the judgment was signed or 90 days after the date the



      1
        The trial court’s judgment disposes of the claims of Hoa Dao d/b/a
Keystone Management and Huy Can Dao d/b/a Keystone Management. The notice
of appeal was signed by Hoa Dao, acting pro se.
                                         1
motion for new trial was filed. She subsequently retained counsel and filed a

motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal.

      The judgment was signed on June 1, 2016, and the motion for new trial was

filed on June 29, 2016; therefore, the notice of appeal was due to be filed by

August 30, 2016. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). The period for granting an

extension of time to file the notice of appeal expired on September 14, 2016. See

Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. The notice of appeal is dated September 16, 2016, and was

received and e-filed by the trial court clerk on September 19, 2016. Absent a

timely-filed notice of appeal or timely request to extend the period during which a

party seeking to appeal must file its notice of appeal, we are required to dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex.

1997). Accordingly, we deny the motion for extension of time and we dismiss the

appeal.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.


                                              ________________________________
                                                      HOLLIS HORTON
                                                            Justice


Submitted on October 19, 2016
Opinion Delivered October 20, 2016

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
                                          2
