Case ID: f-appx_361/html/0837-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifton Elias HOWARD, III, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10307.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 8, 2010.
    Dawrence Wayne Rice, Jr., Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Clifton Elias Howard, III, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Clifton Elias Howard, III appeals from the district court’s denial of his request for investigatory and expert services under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(l). We dismiss because the district court’s denial without prejudice was not a final, appealable order and the issue is now moot.

At the time of the request at issue, Howard had not filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raising any claims for relief. The district court denied the request on the ground that it was unable to make a finding that the requested services were necessary, as required by statute. The denial was without prejudice, and a review of the district court’s docket in case number CR-04-05234 discloses that Howard has subsequently filed a § 2255 motion collaterally attacking his conviction, along with a new request for expert and investigatory services.

The district court’s denial without prejudice of Howard’s request under section § 3006A was not a final order conferring appellate jurisdiction upon this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Further, Howard’s subsequent request renders this appeal moot.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.