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


Menu:
  •      Case: 15-50101      Document: 00513766584         Page: 1    Date Filed: 11/18/2016
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 15-50101                               FILED
    November 18, 2016
    JOSE DURAN,
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Petitioner-Appellant
    v.
    LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
    JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
    Respondent-Appellee
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 7:14-CV-73
    Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
    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. § 2254
    . Duran now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA)
    from this court and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 15-50101    Document: 00513766584     Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/18/2016
    No. 15-50101
    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 (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.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-50101

Citation Numbers: 670 F. App'x 374

Filed Date: 11/18/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023