IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

QUENTIN ALONSO CORDOVA, §

#07158509, §

MOVANT, §

§

V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:22-CV-748-M-BK

§ (CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3:20-CR-377-M-1)

§ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

RESPONDENT. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, Movant Quentin Alonso Cordova’s

pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was referred to the 

United States Magistrate Judge for case management, including findings and a recommended 

disposition. As detailed here, the § 2255 motion should be summarily DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.1

On September 24 2021, following his guilty plea to two counts of possession of a firearm 

by a convicted felon, Cordova was sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment and a three-year term 

of supervised release. Crim. Doc. 49. Cordova’s direct appeal of his conviction is pending 

before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Cordova v. United States, 

No. 21-10992 (5th Cir.) (Anders Brief filed by appointed counsel on Dec. 28, 2021). In his 

1

See Rule 4(b) of the RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2255 PROCEEDINGS (“If it plainly appears 

from the motion and any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving 

party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion and direct the clerk to notify the 

moving party.”). 

Case 3:22-cv-00748-M-BK Document 3 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 13
Page 2 of 3

§ 2255 Motion, Cordova concedes counsel filed an Anders brief in December 2021. Doc. 2 at 3. 

However, a district court does not entertain a § 2255 motion during the pendency of a 

direct appeal because “the disposition of the appeal may render the motion moot.” Welsh v.

United States, 404 F.2d 333, 333 (5th Cir. 1968) (per curiam), abrogated on other grounds; see 

e.g. United States v. Bernegger, 661 F.3d 232, 241 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“A defendant 

cannot collaterally attack his conviction until it has been affirmed on direct appeal.”). Therefore,

Cordova’s request for § 2255 relief should be dismissed without prejudice as premature. 

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the § 2255 motion be DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to it being reasserted after the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Fifth Circuit has determined Cordova’s direct criminal appeal.2 See Rule 4(b) of the RULES 

GOVERNING SECTION 2255 PROCEEDINGS.

SO RECOMMENDED on April 6, 2022.

2 There is a one-year statute of limitations for filing motions to vacate, set aside, or correct 

sentence, which will apply to any subsequent § 2255 motion that Movant files in this Court. 28 

U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1)-(4). 

Case 3:22-cv-00748-M-BK Document 3 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 14
Page 3 of 3

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by 

law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific 

written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.

R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which 

objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. 

Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual 

findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district 

court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 

F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections to 14 days).

Case 3:22-cv-00748-M-BK Document 3 Filed 04/06/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 15