USA v. Darrel Jone, No. 10-30623 (5th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 10-30623 Document: 00511453538 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-30623 Summary Calendar April 21, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DARREL G. JONES, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:10-CV-1350 USDC No. 2:97-CR-217-3 Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Darrel G. Jones, federal prisoner # 30209-048, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, challenging his convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense and his aggregate 248-month sentences. The district court found that Jones s § 2255 motion was successive and transferred the case to this court for a determination whether Jones was entitled to authorization to proceed. Jones currently seeks * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-30623 Document: 00511453538 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2011 No. 10-30623 a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court s denial of his motion for reconsideration of this transfer order. If necessary, this court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction sua sponte. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). The order denying Jones s motion to reconsider the order transferring his § 2255 motion to this court is a non-appealable interlocutory order. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(a), (b); F ED. R. C IV. P. 54(a), 59(e); Brinar v. Williamson, 245 F.3d 515, 516-18 (5th Cir. 2001). This court is without jurisdiction to consider Jones s request for a COA. Consequently, the motion for a COA is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 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.