Case ID: f-appx_623/html/0241-01.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. Delfino BUSTOS, also known as Defino Bustos, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-51107
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 24, 2015.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Defino Bustos, Carlo D’Angelo, Counsel, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Delfino Bustos challenges his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting possession, with intent to distribute, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and his resulting 135-month sentence. He asserts the magistrate judge erred in declining to hold an eviden-tiary hearing on, or grant, his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

“Generally, this court’s jurisdiction is limited to review the district court[’s] final orders, qualified interlocutory orders, and collateral orders.” Goodman v. Harris Cty., 443 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir.2006); 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Moreover, “it is well established that a magistrate judge’s order is not ‘final’ within the meaning of § 1291 and may not be appealed to this court directly”. Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant, 765 F.3d 394, 395 (5th Cir.2014) (quoting Donaldson v. Ducote, 373 F.3d 622, 624 (5th Cir.2004)). Because Bustos did not object to the magistrate judge’s order, or otherwise renew his motion, to the district court, we lack jurisdiction to consider his appeal. See id.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.