USA v. Delfino Bustos, No. 14-51107 (5th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-51107 Document: 00513284078 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-51107 Summary Calendar FILED November 24, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. DELFINO BUSTOS, also known as Defino Bustos, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:14-CR-103-3 Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Delfino Bustos challenges his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting possession, with intent to distribute, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and his resulting 135-month sentence. He asserts the magistrate judge erred in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on, or grant, his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 14-51107 Document: 00513284078 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 No. 14-51107 “Generally, this court’s jurisdiction is limited to review the district court[’s] final orders, qualified interlocutory orders, and collateral orders.” Goodman v. Harris Cty., 443 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2006); 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Moreover, “it is well established that a magistrate judge’s order is not ‘final’ within the meaning of § 1291 and may not be appealed to this court directly”. Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant, 765 F.3d 394, 395 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Donaldson v. Ducote, 373 F.3d 622, 624 (5th Cir.2004)). Because Bustos did not object to the magistrate judge’s order, or otherwise renew his motion, to the district court, we lack jurisdiction to consider his appeal. See id. DISMISSED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.