Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01027/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01027-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elias Herrera-Zamora
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ELIAS HERRERA-ZAMORA, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-1027 

(D.C. Nos. 1:13-CV-02126-PAB and 

 1:11-CR-002790-PAB-2) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, PHILLIPS, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

We raise sua sponte the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to consider 

this appeal. Elias Herrera-Zamora filed his notice of appeal from the district court’s 

December 4, 2014 order denying in part his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his 

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Except in certain limited circumstances not present here, our appellate jurisdiction 

is limited to review of final decisions. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A final decision is one that 

“ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute 

judgment.” Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 204 (1999) (internal 

quotations omitted). 

Although the clerk entered a “Final Judgment” on December 4, 2014, the 

judgment is not final. In his December 4 order, the district court denied three of the four 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

January 27, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1027 Document: 01019376847 Date Filed: 01/27/2015 Page: 1 
2 

claims asserted in Mr. Herrera-Zamora’s § 2255 motion, but concluded that Mr. HerreraZamora was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that counsel was ineffective 

for failure to seek a safety valve meeting. The district court has appointed counsel for 

Mr. Herrera-Zamora and has scheduled an evidentiary hearing. In short, the district court 

proceedings are ongoing and the clerk’s entry of a final judgment was in error. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The clerk of the 

district court is directed to correct the district court docket. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

by: Jane K. Castro 

 Counsel to the Clerk 

Appellate Case: 15-1027 Document: 01019376847 Date Filed: 01/27/2015 Page: 2