Court Opinion

ID: 9955887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 18:00:44.201355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:35.961390
License: Public Domain

Case: 24-40024           Document: 29-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/29/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                                  March 29, 2024
                                   No. 24-40024
                                  ____________                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Luis Mascarenas-Jaramillo,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                          USDC No. 7:18-CR-1422-4
                  ______________________________

Before Smith, Southwick, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      Nelson Ebaugh, counsel appointed to represent Luis Mascarenas-
Jaramillo in his criminal case, has filed a motion to withdraw. Counsel
maintains that he has a conflict of interest based on Mascarenas-Jaramillo’s
pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, in which Mascarenas-Jaramillo contends that
Ebaugh rendered ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. Mascarenas-
Jaramillo, in response, has moved to proceed pro se on appeal.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-40024        Document: 29-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/29/2024

                                  No. 24-40024

       We must examine our jurisdiction sua sponte. See Mosley v. Cozby,
813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). We have jurisdiction over final orders and
“a small set of prejudgment orders that are collateral to the merits of an
action and too important to be denied immediate review.” Mohawk Indus.,
Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 103 (2009) (internal quotation marks and cita-
tion omitted).
       Although Mascarenas-Jaramillo’s notice of appeal references his judg-
ment and sentence, he has already appealed both the original judgment and
the amended judgment in his criminal case. He is not entitled to a second
appeal of either. See United States v. Arlt, 567 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1978);
accord United States v. Rodriguez, 821 F.3d 632, 633-34 (5th Cir. 2016). In
light of this, and given that the notice of appeal was dated 11 days after the
issuance of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we treat the
notice of appeal as evincing Mascarenas-Jaramillo’s desire to appeal the
decision in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. But no final judgment has been
entered in that matter. The report and recommendation is not a final deci-
sion from which an appeal can be taken. See United States v. Cooper, 135 F.3d
960, 963 (5th Cir. 1998).
       Because there is no final judgment and no immediately appealable
order, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See id. Accordingly, it is
DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction, and counsel’s motion to withdraw
and Mascarenas-Jaramillo’s motion to proceed pro se are DENIED as moot.

                                       2