USA v. Garrie Samuels, No. 08-51059 (5th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-51059 Summary Calendar September 3, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GARRIE LAVERT SAMUELS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:02-CR-108-1 Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Garrie Lavert Samuels, federal prisoner # 27012-077, appeals from the district court s order denying his motion for relief from judgment from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion pursuant to F ED. R. C IV. P. 60 (b). Samuels now moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction sua sponte if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A certificate of appealability (COA) is required from the final order in a habeas corpus * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. No. 08-51059 proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is a final appealable order within the meaning of § 2253, which requires a COA from a final order in a habeas proceeding. See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 887-88 (5th Cir. 2007). This court lacks jurisdiction over Samuels s appeal absent a COA ruling in the district court. See Muniz v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 43, 45 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Youngblood, 116 F.3d 1113, 1114-15 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, Samuels s IFP motion is premature and will be denied without prejudice. This case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of considering whether a COA should issue. IFP DENIED; REMANDED. 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.