United States v. Chi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Docket: 24-40831
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-40831 Document: 66-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED October 30, 2025 No. 24-40831 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Anson Chi,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-155-1 ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Anson Chi, federal prisoner # 44588-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for an extension of time to file a motion for the transfer of property pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). However, we “must examine the basis of [our] jurisdiction, on [our] own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987).

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-40831 Document: 66-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2025

No. 24-40831

The order denying Chi’s motion for an extension of time to file a motion for the transfer of property was not a final decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798 (1989); Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 103 (2009). The order also does not fall within any jurisprudential exception, such as the collateral-order doctrine, that would render it a final, appealable order. See Goodman v. Harris Cnty., 443 F.3d 464, 467-69 (5th Cir. 2006). The order likewise does not fall into the classes of interlocutory decisions listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1292 over which courts of appeal have jurisdiction, and it was not certified for appeal by the district court pursuant to § 1292(b) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Thus, we lack jurisdiction over the instant appeal. See Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., Inc., 849 F.2d 955, 957-59 (5th Cir. 1988); Save the Bay, Inc. v. United States Army, 639 F.2d 1100, 1102-03 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, Chi’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. His motion to amend his reply brief is DENIED.