Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo JAUREGUI-DURAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-22
Citations: 108 F. App'x 982
Docket Number: No. 03-41589
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo JAUREGUI-DURAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 982–983

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo JAUREGUI-DURAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-41589.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Sept. 22, 2004.
Mitchel Neurock, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Laredo, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Jeffrey L. Wilde, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
I. BACKGROUND
Ricardo Jauregui-Duran appeals from the revocation of his term of supervised release. In this appeal, Jauregui-Duran seeks to challenge his underlying conviction on the grounds that he was improperly convicted of a subsequent commission of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). He alleges that the conviction was improper because the prior "commission" of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) alleged in the indictment was actually required to be a prior conviction of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a).
This court has previously held that a defendant may not challenge his underlying conviction in the context of an appeal from the revocation of his term of supervised release, but should properly raise such a challenge in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Moody, 277 F.3d 719, 721 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Francischine, 512 F.2d 827, 828 (5th Cir.1975). Although this court has intimated that a jurisdictional exception may exist to that bar, see United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 832-33 (5th Cir.1996), we need not address the existence of that exception because the instant challenge is not jurisdictional. Cf. United States v. Longoria, 298 F.3d 367, 369, 372 (5th Cir.2002). Similarly, because this claim is not properly before the court, we need not reach Jauregui-Duran's substantive claim as to 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), and specifically withhold consideration of this issue.
Accordingly, because Jauregui-Duran's instant challenge to his underlying conviction is not cognizable in this appeal, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
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.