Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51107/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51107-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Delfino Bustos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51107

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

DELFINO BUSTOS, also known as Defino Bustos,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-103-3

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 evidentiary hearing on, or grant, his pro se

motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 24, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-51107 Document: 00513284078 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
No. 14-51107

2

“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. 

 Case: 14-51107 Document: 00513284078 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2015