Case ID: f-appx_542/html/0369-01.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. Alfred BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10263
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 18, 2013.
    Alfred Brooks, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, USDC No. 4:98-CR-84-2.
    Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alfred Brooks, federal prisoner # 30337-077, appeals the district court’s denial of the Government’s motion for a sentence reduction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). Brooks asserts generally that the district court erred in finding that he did not provide substantial assistance and in finding that he made misrepresentations in his previous motion for a sentence reduction.

“[A] federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.” United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628, 122 S.Ct. 2450, 153 L.Ed.2d 586 (2002); United States v. Lightfoot, 724 F.3d 593, 595 (5th Cir.2013). Section 3742, 18 U.S.C., authorizes this court to consider a defendant’s appeal of an otherwise final sentence when the defendant argues that the sentence was imposed in violation of law; was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines; was greater than the advisory guidelines range; or was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable. § 3742(a). We must consider Brooks’s arguments regarding the denial of the Government’s Rule 35(b) motion to determine our jurisdiction. See Lightfoot, 724 F.3d at 595. Brooks does not raise any arguments that fall within the parameters of § 3742(a). Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the Rule 35(b) motion. See Lightfoot, 724 F.3d at 595-96.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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