Autry Jones v. Lorie Davis, Director, No. 17-20006 (5th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 17-20006 Document: 00514247271 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-20006 FILED November 22, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk AUTRY LEE JONES, Petitioner-Appellant v. LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CV-913 Before PRADO, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Autry Lee Jones, former Texas prisoner # 325804 and former federal prisoner # 52873-080, moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his 1981 Texas habitual offender sentence for possession of a controlled substance. He argues that the district court erred by dismissing as time barred his claim that he is “actually innocent” of the habitual offender enhancement. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-20006 Document: 00514247271 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2017 No. 17-20006 We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction sua sponte if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Jones has previously filed at least one unsuccessful § 2254 challenge to the instant conviction and sentence, the district court should have dismissed the instant § 2254 application as an unauthorized successive, and this court lacks jurisdiction over the instant appeal. United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 77475 (5th Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and DENY AS MOOT Jones’s motion for a COA. 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.