Case Name: Ronald E. COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffery TRAVIS, Warden of Washington Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-13
Citations: 258 F. App'x 699
Docket Number: No. 07-30775
Parties: Ronald E. COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffery TRAVIS, Warden of Washington Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 258
Pages: 699–700

Head Matter:
Ronald E. COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffery TRAVIS, Warden of Washington Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-30775
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 13, 2007.
Ronald E. Coleman, Angie, LA, pro se.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Coleman, Louisiana prisoner # 119449, applied for federal habeas corpus relief, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and challenging his sentence. Before ruling on the merits of the application, the district court issued an order construing the petition as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and transferring the case to another section within the court. Coleman appealed to this court from the denial of his motion for reconsideration of the order construing his petition as arising under § 2254; he moves this court for a certificate of appealability ("COA") to appeal the ruling on this interlocutory issue.
"This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary." Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). The order denying Coleman's motion to reconsider the order construing his petition as arising under § 2254 and transferring the case to another section of the district court is a nonappealable interlocutory order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 1292(a), (b); Brinar v. Williamson, 245 F.3d 515, 516-18 (5th Cir.2001); Thomas v. Scott, 47 F.3d 713, 714-16 (5th Cir.1995). This court is without jurisdiction to consider Coleman's request for a COA. Accordingly, the motion for a COA is denied, and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
COA DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.