Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0374-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose DURAN, Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
    No. 15-50101
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 11/18/2016
    Jose Duran, Pro Se,
    
      Susan Frances San Miguel, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Posteonviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Ap-pellee.
    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. § 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.