United States v. David Diehl , 704 F. App'x 393 ( 2017 )

Case: 16-51455 Document: 00514251881 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-51455 FILED
Summary Calendar November 28, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DAVID ANDREW DIEHL, also known as David A. Diehl,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:16-CV-1124
USDC No. 1:10-CR-297-1
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
David Andrew Diehl, federal prisoner # 53214-018, appeals the district
court’s order in a discovery dispute pertaining to Diehl’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255proceeding. Diehl was convicted in 2011 of 10 counts of production of child
pornography. After a bench trial, he was sentenced to 600 months of
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-51455 Document: 00514251881 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2017
No. 16-51455
imprisonment. This court affirmed, and on October 5, 2015, the Supreme
Court denied certiorari.
Diehl filed a discovery motion in the district court in anticipation of
seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied the
motion, and the government then moved pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d) for
an order directing Diehl and his former attorney to return all discovery
materials previously provided to them. The magistrate judge ordered Diehl to
explain what discovery materials he needed and why. Diehl objected, and the
district court overruled the objections and affirmed. Diehl then filed a timely
notice of appeal.
During the course of the discovery dispute, Diehl timely filed a § 2255
motion in the district court. That motion is still pending.
We are obligated to examine the basis of our own jurisdiction. 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 certain
collateral orders. Goodman v. Harris Cty., 443 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2006).
Discovery orders are generally not appealable. Id. Here, Diehl seeks to appeal
an order requiring him to explain what discovery he needs and why. We lack
jurisdiction to review the district court’s interlocutory ruling. See id. at 467-
69.
Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Diehl’s
motion for leave to file a supplementary brief is DENIED as moot.
2