Jose Duran v. Lorie Davis, Director

Fifth Circuit

Jose Duran v. Lorie Davis, Director

670 F. App'x 374

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 18, 2016

Docket15-50101

StatusUnpublished

This text of 670 F. App'x 374 (Jose Duran v. Lorie Davis, Director) 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

Jose Duran v. Lorie Davis, Director, 670 F. App'x 374 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Duran, Texas prisoner # 1737234, was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 60 years of imprisonment. The district court entered final judgment dismissing Duran’s petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2264. Duran now seeks a certificate of appeala-bility (COA) from this court and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).

Although Duran filed two notices of appeal from interlocutory orders, he did not file a notice of appeal from the final judgment, and consequently we are without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from that judgment. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007); Jackson v. Decker, 451 F.2d 348, 349 (5th Cir. 1971). Also, we have no jurisdiction to review the orders denying Duran’s motion to amend the petition and denying Duran IFP status on appeal, as those orders were not final and appealable See Wallace v. Cty. of Comal, 400 F.3d 284, 291 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). We note additionally that our authority to grant or deny a COA depends on the existence of a final order by the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), (c)(1). Consequently, a COA is DENIED, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and Duran’s IFP motion is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Jose Duran, Texas prisoner # 1737234, was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 60 years of imprisonment. The district court entered final judgment dismissing Duran’s petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2264. Duran now seeks a certificate of appeala-bility (COA) from this court and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).

Although Duran filed two notices of appeal from interlocutory orders, he did not file a notice of appeal from the final judgment, and consequently we are without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from that judgment. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007); Jackson v. Decker, 451 F.2d 348, 349 (5th Cir. 1971). Also, we have no jurisdiction to review the orders denying Duran’s motion to amend the petition and denying Duran IFP status on appeal, as those orders were not final and appealable See Wallace v. Cty. of Comal, 400 F.3d 284, 291 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). We note additionally that our authority to grant or deny a COA depends on the existence of a final order by the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), (c)(1). Consequently, a COA is DENIED, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and Duran’s IFP motion is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be 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)

670 F. App'x 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-duran-v-lorie-davis-director-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack