Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifton Elias HOWARD, III, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-08
Citations: 361 F. App'x 837
Docket Number: No. 08-10307
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifton Elias HOWARD, III, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 837–838

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifton Elias HOWARD, III, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10307.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 8, 2010.
Dawrence Wayne Rice, Jr., Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Clifton Elias Howard, III, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Clifton Elias Howard, III appeals from the district court's denial of his request for investigatory and expert services under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(l). We dismiss because the district court's denial without prejudice was not a final, appealable order and the issue is now moot.
At the time of the request at issue, Howard had not filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raising any claims for relief. The district court denied the request on the ground that it was unable to make a finding that the requested services were necessary, as required by statute. The denial was without prejudice, and a review of the district court's docket in case number CR-04-05234 discloses that Howard has subsequently filed a § 2255 motion collaterally attacking his conviction, along with a new request for expert and investigatory services.
The district court's denial without prejudice of Howard's request under section § 3006A was not a final order conferring appellate jurisdiction upon this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Further, Howard's subsequent request renders this appeal moot.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.