United States v. Hill

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 9, 2026
• Docket: 25-20438
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-20438 Document: 34-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2026

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

____________ FILED March 9, 2026 No. 25-20438 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Marc Anthony Hill,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17-CR-7-1 ______________________________

Before Stewart, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Marc Anthony Hill, federal prisoner # 18512-479, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in an appeal from the denial of a motion requesting the unsealing of transcripts and wiretap evidence in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. By moving this court for leave to proceed IFP, Hill is challenging the district court’s implicit determination that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-20438 Document: 34-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2026

No. 25-20438

“This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Generally, our jurisdiction is limited to the review of “final orders, qualified interlocutory orders, and collateral orders.” Goodman v. Harris Cnty., 443 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2006). Discovery orders are generally not appealable. Id. Here, Hill seeks to appeal the denial of a discovery order in his pending § 2255 proceeding. We lack jurisdiction to review that ruling. Id. at 467-69. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Hill’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED as moot.