Case ID: f-appx_342/html/0995-01.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

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Garrie Lavert SAMUELS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-51059
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 3, 2009.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Garrie Lavert Samuels, Jonesville, VA, pro se.
    Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Garrie Lavert Samuels, federal prisoner # 27012-077, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b). Samuels now moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction sua sponte if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). A certificate of appealability (COA) is required from “the final order in a habe-as corpus proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is a final appealable order within the meaning of § 2253, which requires a COA from a final order in a habeas proceeding. See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 887-88 (5th Cir.2007). This court lacks jurisdiction over Samu-els’s appeal absent a COA ruling in the distinct court. See Muniz v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 43, 45 (5th Cir.1997); United States v. Youngblood, 116 F.3d 1113, 1114-15 (5th Cir.1997). Accordingly, Samuels’s IFP motion is premature and will be denied without prejudice. This case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of considering whether a COA should issue.

IFP DENIED; REMANDED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.