Edward Sanchez v. Rodney Chandler, Warden

Fifth Circuit

Edward Sanchez v. Rodney Chandler, Warden

571 F. App'x 301

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 10, 2014

Docket13-11318

StatusUnpublished

This text of 571 F. App'x 301 (Edward Sanchez v. Rodney Chandler, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edward Sanchez v. Rodney Chandler, Warden, 571 F. App'x 301 (5th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Edward Sanchez, federal prisoner # 35757-044, appeals the district court’s *302 order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and transferring his case to the Eastern District of Missouri. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction sua sponte if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). As the order in question is interlocutory and does not fall within the parameters of the collateral order doctrine, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Brinar v. Williamson, 245 F.3d 515, 516-18 (5th Cir.2001). Sanchez’s appeal is therefore DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *302 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Edward Sanchez, federal prisoner # 35757-044, appeals the district court’s *302 order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and transferring his case to the Eastern District of Missouri. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction sua sponte if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). As the order in question is interlocutory and does not fall within the parameters of the collateral order doctrine, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Brinar v. Williamson, 245 F.3d 515, 516-18 (5th Cir.2001). Sanchez’s appeal is therefore DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *302 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 F. App'x 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-sanchez-v-rodney-chandler-warden-ca5-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack