with the mailbox rule” because he did not “execut[e] a notarized statement or a declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 setting forth the date of his deposit in the regular mail system and stating that he included prepaid postage.” Price, 420 F.3d at 1166-67. Mr. Pease’s notice of appeal did not come with a certificate of service attached. And Mr. Pease’s response was neither a notarized statement nor a sworn declaration. It simply referenced an attached mail log and receipt showing a withdrawal of postage funds and “pray[ed] that the enclosed [documents] meet[] the Courts [sic] requirement under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) as applicant complied with the Mail Box Rule as Pease is confined in an institution.” This does not suffice. See Price, 420 F.3d at 1167 (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we conclude Mr. Pease is
holding even where inmateplaintiff submitted certificate of service stating he placed filing in prison mail on timely date and with appropriate postage that submission failed to satisfy mailbox rule because there was no under penalty of perjury language as specifically required by 28 usc  1746 holding the rule 4 requirement of delivery to the appropriate united states attorney required personal service not service by certified mail recognizing presumption of effective service by regular mail holding rules of civil procedure are appropriate in determining what constitutes proper service by certified mail holding that defense of fraud was waived where no special issue was submitted and there was disputed evidence