Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darrel G. JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-21
Citations: 423 F. App'x 403
Docket Number: No. 10-30623
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darrel G. JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 423
Pages: 403–404

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darrel G. JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30623
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 21, 2011.
Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Raymond Steven Sussman, Esq., Suss-man Law Firm, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Darrel G. Jones, federal prisoner # 30209-048, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 mo tion, challenging his convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense and his aggregate 248-month sentences. The district court found that Jones's § 2255 motion was successive and transferred the case to this court for a determination whether Jones was entitled to authorization to proceed. Jones currently seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration of this transfer order.
If necessary, this court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction sua sponte. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). The order denying Jones's motion to reconsider the order transferring his § 2255 motion to this court is a non-appealable interlocutory order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 1292(a), (b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(a), 59(e); Brinar v. Williamson, 245 F.3d 515, 516-18 (5th Cir.2001). This court is without jurisdiction to consider Jones's request for a COA. Consequently, the motion for a COA is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.