White’s mailing is deficient because he has not proven that his petition was deposited in the mail prior to the final mail pickup for the day. Rule 5 does not specify what constitutes “depositing” a document in the mail for purposes of the rule. Case law, however, suggests that the mailbox rule does not require that the post office be open to postmark and process the envelope on the date of mailing. For example, in Sigel, the court of appeals held that the appellant failed to comply with the mailbox rule under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which is substantively similar to Rule 5, because it did not deposit the document in the mail on a Sunday. See 749 S.W.2d at 188; see also Walkup v. Thompson, 704 S.W.2d 938, 938 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1986, writ ref d n.r.e.) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Martin Hedrick Co. v. Gotcher, 656 S.W.2d
holding that taxable costs included only the premium on a surety bond posted on appeal not the fees paid for letters of credit to secure the bond where the state statute and court rule only specifically allowed for premium on any surety bond holding that an appeal is perfected when the appeal bond is filed holding that an appeal bond needed to be deposited in the mail on a sunday holding that it is proper for a district court to considered sic the possibility that an appeal may result in the award of attorneys fees in determining the appeal bond amount recognizing that no bond or a nominal bond may be appropriate in cases involving the public interest