Court Opinion

ID: 9930519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 01:00:39.954007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:04.009123
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30187         Document: 00517057850             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/06/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                                        No. 23-30187                                     FILED
                                      ____________                                February 6, 2024
                                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                               Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Jacob Glen Collett,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 6:18-CR-67-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Clement, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Jacob Glen Collett (“Collett”) pleaded guilty to one count of
   conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance in
   violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and one count of possession of a firearm and
   ammunition by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The
   district court imposed a 151-month sentence of imprisonment and five years
   of supervised release. Collett now appeals, pro se, the district court’s order

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30187       Document: 00517057850             Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/06/2024

                                        No. 23-30187

   denying his motion for the original recording of a December 18, 2019 court
   proceeding and a “contradictory hearing” to determine the accuracy of an
   official transcript of said proceeding. For the following reasons, we
   DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
          I.    FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
          Collett pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent
   to distribute a controlled substance 1 and one count of possession of a firearm
   and ammunition by a prohibited person. 2 On August 13, 2018, the district
   court sentenced him to a total of 151 months in prison and five years of
   supervised release. Collett did not file an appeal. Collett subsequently filed a
   letter that was construed by the district court as a motion for leave to file an
   out of time appeal and for the appointment of counsel. Counsel was
   appointed for Collett, and a hearing was set for September 18, 2019, to
   address the motion. A brief appearance hearing setting a status conference
   was held on December 18, 2019.
          Through counsel, Collett argued that his motion was not a request for
   an out of time appeal, but it was a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging
   ineffective assistance of counsel. Collett next filed a pro se motion to modify
   his sentence. The district court issued a ruling and order addressing the initial
   letter as a motion for an out of time appeal and the second letter as a § 2255
   motion. The district court denied both motions on February 7, 2022. No

          _____________________
          1
             Law enforcement agents found Collett in possession of 635.27 grams of
   methamphetamine, 222 dosage units of LSD, 56 tablets containing fentanyl, 4.01 grams of
   MDMA, 38.9 grams of heroin, 16.5 grams of cocaine, and 52.5 grams of a mixture and
   substance containing THC.
          2
            Collett was found to be in possession of a Beretta 9 mm model 92FS handgun and
   16 rounds of ammunition.

                                             2
Case: 23-30187      Document: 00517057850           Page: 3     Date Filed: 02/06/2024

                                     No. 23-30187

   appeal was filed, and appointed counsel was permitted to withdraw on March
   14, 2022.
          On January 5, 2023, Collett filed a pro se motion requesting a
   transcript of the December 18, 2019 appearance hearing in anticipation of
   challenging his sentence. The district court granted the motion. On March 8,
   2023, Collett filed a motion seeking production of the original recording of
   the appearance hearing. On March 15, 2023, the district court denied the
   motion. Collett timely filed a notice of appeal. The Government moved to
   dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the district court’s
   March 15, 2023 order was not a final appealable order. This court denied the
   motion without giving reasons.
                      II.    STANDARD OF REVIEW
          This court may only exercise jurisdiction over final orders and certain
   interlocutory orders as defined by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291–92. “For
   purposes of § 1291, a final judgment is normally deemed not to have occurred
   until there has been a decision by the [d]istrict [c]ourt that ends the litigation
   on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the
   judgment.” Martin v. Halliburton, 618 F.3d 476, 481 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted). Discovery decisions are reviewed for
   abuse of discretion. See, e.g., HC Gun & Knife Shows, Inc. v. City of Houston,
   201 F.3d 544, 549 (5th Cir. 2000). This court “will reverse a discovery ruling
   only if it is ‘arbitrary or clearly unreasonable,’ and the complaining party
   demonstrates that it was prejudiced by the ruling.” Id. (quoting Mayo v. Tri-
   Bell Indus., Inc., 787 F.2d 1007, 1012 (5th Cir. 1986)).

                                           3
Case: 23-30187      Document: 00517057850           Page: 4    Date Filed: 02/06/2024

                                     No. 23-30187

                             III.    DISCUSSION
          On appeal, Collett argues that the district court erred in denying his
   motion for production of the original recording of the December 18, 2019
   appearance hearing. The Government counters that this court does not have
   jurisdiction to consider this appeal because the discovery-related order at
   issue is neither a final decision nor otherwise immediately appealable. As we
   explain below, we agree with the Government.
          In this case, the order of the district court denying Collett’s motion
   for production did not end the litigation on the merits. Additionally, the
   district court has not: (1) entered a final judgment; (2) issued an interlocutory
   order as specified in § 1292(a); or (3) certified an interlocutory order for
   appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291–92. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over the
   present appeal only if an order of the district court is deemed final under the
   collateral order doctrine or another jurisprudential exception. See Dardar v.
   Lafourche Realty Co., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Williams v.
   Catoe, 946 F.3d 278, 280 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (citing Digit. Equip. Corp.
   v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 868 (1994)). “The collateral order
   doctrine permits appeals from orders that are deemed final under 28 U.S.C.
   § 1291 because they ‘(1) conclusively determine the disputed question; (2)
   resolve an issue that is completely separate from the merits of the action; and
   (3) would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.’”
   Troice v. Proskauer Rose, L.L.P., 816 F.3d 341, 345 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting
   Walker v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 99 F.3d 761, 766 (5th Cir. 1996)).
   The district court’s March 15, 2023 order fails to satisfy the second
   condition, therefore establishing the order as unappealable under the
   collateral order doctrine.
          A. Conclusively Determining the Disputed Question

                                          4
Case: 23-30187        Document: 00517057850          Page: 5    Date Filed: 02/06/2024

                                      No. 23-30187

          “The requirement that the district court's order ‘conclusively
   determine’ the disputed question means that the order must be final as to
   only the one inquiry that the order determines.” NCDR, L.L.C. v. Mauze &
   Bagby, P.L.L.C., 745 F.3d 742, 748 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Behrens v.
   Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 307–08 (1996)). “Conclusively” requires a showing
   that it is “unlikely that the district court will revisit the order.” Henry v. Lake
   Charles Am. Press, L.L.C., 566 F.3d 164, 174 (5th Cir. 2009). In denying
   Collett’s motion, the district court noted that “[n]one of the arguments
   proffered by [Collett] support granting any of these requests, especially
   where the transcript of the referenced hearing . . . has been provided to him.”
   The language of the order makes clear that there is no indication that the
   district   court    would    revisit   its   decision   regarding    the    order.
   See Henry, 566 F.3d at 174. Therefore, we conclude that the district court’s
   order is conclusive for purposes of the collateral order doctrine.
          B. Resolving an Important Issue Separate from the Merits of the Case
          “In order for an issue to be immediately appealed, it must be separate
   from the merits of the case. Issues are not separate ‘where they are but steps
   towards [a] final judgment in which they will merge.’” NCDR, L.L.C., 745
   F.3d at 749 (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546
   (1949)). “The question of separability turns on whether the matter at issue
   ‘is significantly different from the fact-related legal issues that likely underlie
   the plaintiff’s claim on the merits.’” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S.
   304, 314 (1995)). Here, no separability exists. Collett’s motion sought
   production of the original recording of the December 18, 2019 hearing and a
   “contradictory hearing” so that he could challenge the completeness or
   authenticity of a transcript previously provided to him by the district court.
   He then intended to use that material, and purported discrepancies between
   the recording and the transcript, to challenge his conviction or sentence.
   Collett’s assertions regarding the purported discrepancies between the

                                            5
Case: 23-30187      Document: 00517057850           Page: 6   Date Filed: 02/06/2024

                                     No. 23-30187

   recording and transcript speak directly to the merits of the case, arguing that
   they “subjected him to a bias and falsification of where the prosecution stood
   in this case before a § 2255 motion was filed.” We therefore conclude that
   the second condition of the collateral order doctrine cannot be met. Because
   the collateral order doctrine requires that all three conditions be satisfied to
   qualify, we need not discuss the remaining condition. Mohawk Indus., Inc. v.
   Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 107 (2009). Consequently, we conclude that we do
   not have jurisdiction over the present appeal.
                            IV.     CONCLUSION
          For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS this appeal for want of
   jurisdiction.

                                          6