* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20937

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ANDRE DAMON COURVILLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 4:03-CR-387-ALL

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andre Courville, federal prisoner # 29153-179, pleaded guilty of possession

of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession with intent

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 25, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20937

2

to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture of cocaine base. He filed a “Motion

to Modify/or Clarify Sentence Pursuant to Fed. Rule of Criminal Procedure 35-

(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (b)(C)(i).” The district court dismissed the motion on

October 5, 2006. On November 30, 2007, Courville filed a “Motion for Determination of Status and Order for the Government to Show Cause” to determine

the status of his “Motion to Modify/or Clarify Sentence.” The court denied the

November 30 motion on December 3, 2007, and Courville filed a notice of appeal.

Courville asserts that he is seeking review of the denial of his “Motion to

Modify/or Clarify Sentence.” We pretermit the issue of whether he has filed a

timely notice of appeal with respect to that motion, because there is no jurisdictional impediment to reaching the merits of the case, and his appeal fails on

the merits. See United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 389 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 728 (2007). 

The district court’s jurisdiction to correct or modify a sentence is limited

to those specific circumstances articulated in § 3582(b) and (c). United States v.

Bridges, 116 F.3d 1110, 1112 (5th Cir. 1997). Courville’s contention that he is

entitled to relief because United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), altered

the binding nature of the guidelines provides no basis for a § 3582(c)(2) motion.

See United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 28-29 (5th Cir. 1994). Furthermore, FED.

R. CRIM. P. 35 does not provide a basis for relief, because neither the version of

rule 35 in force when Courville committed his offenses nor the current version

permits the district court to correct a sentence “at any time” or on the defendant’s motion. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 35. 

Courville’s notice of appeal was timely with respect to the denial of his

“Motion for Determination of Status.” See FED.R.APP.P.4(a)(1). Federal courts

are courts of limited jurisdiction. Save the Bay, Inc. v. United States Army, 639

F.2d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir. Feb. 1981) (per curiam). The order denying the “Motion for Determination of Status” was not a final order of dismissal. See 28

U.S.C. § 1291; Frizzell v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 254, 255 (5th Cir. 1991). The order
No. 07-20937

3

also does not fall within any jurisprudential exception that would render it a final, appealable order. See Witherspoon v. White, 111 F.3d 399, 401 n.5 (5th Cir.

1997) (recognizing the collateral order, death knell, and pragmatic finality exceptions to the general rule requiring finality). It also does not fall into the classes

of interlocutory decisions listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1292 over which courts of appeal

have jurisdiction. Finally, it was not certified for appeal by the district court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) orFED. R. CIV.P. 54(b). Thus, this court does not

have jurisdiction over the order. See Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., 849 F.2d

955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988); Save the Bay, 639 F.2d at 1102.

AFFIRMED.